i was talking to a christian fren.
He told me that animals do not have a soul and it is ok to slaughter animals because it will not feel any pain.
i was very upset with his answer. i told him, if he use a stick to beat a dog, would the dog not whine?
we argue over the matter.
So, fellow buddhist frens, what is your take on the matter?
When you see cockroaches upturned on their sides and ants swarming over it (presumably taking tiny little bites) you can see the cockroach's legs flailing in pain. So, my take is that as long they can feel pain they have the Buddha-nature, meaning once karma has taken its course they will sooner or later they will be reborn as a human.
i dun know why my fren insist on that animals have no soul.
he believe so because his pastor told him.
it is so sad.
there is no soul or a permanent soul/self in Buddhism.
all the religions in this world all preached there is a soul, but not in Buddhism.
this is the difference.
Originally posted by kuji-in:i was talking to a christian fren.
He told me that animals do not have a soul and it is ok to slaughter animals because it will not feel any pain.
i was very upset with his answer. i told him, if he use a stick to beat a dog, would the dog not whine?
we argue over the matter.
So, fellow buddhist frens, what is your take on the matter?
Animals have cognizance just like we do. Therefore it is utterly ignorant and false to slaughter animals bcos they are seen as somehow different from us... as they are completely capable of the pain and suffering we experience.
But, there is no soul in either human nor animals.
You heard it right... there is no soul, even in human beings.
There is consciousness, cognizance, but there is no such thing as a 'self'.
There are unique, individual mindstreams, which are momentary manifestation of cognizance according to conditions... consciousness arise dependent on sense organ and sense objects, there is no independent, permanent soul.
AEN explains it perfectly :)
excuse me for posting here ..... I am not buddhist ..... I am a catholic, but I am utterly, utterly convinced that animals do have souls ..... and that God's love extends to all of his creation, not just human beings.
And there are many other christians and catholics that hold similar view too. The late Pope John Paul II for example, also affirmed that animals, too, have souls, he went on to remind us to have the same love and compassion for our animal brethrens. There are organizations like the catholic concern for animals, and in many catholic churches around the world, blessings for pets and animals are traditionally conducted by the priests at certain parishes, like st mary's of the angels at bukit batok in Singapore, during the feast day of st francis of assisi, october 4th. St Franscis of Assisi was known to have preached the gospel to the animals, and he's known today as the patron saint of animals. You'll see lots of people bringing in different pets to the church to be blessed by the priests during the occassion.
I think it's pointless to go into the nuances of the doctrines of different religions, but to me, it's very very simple, what does your conscience, your humanity, tells you ? The response of the average human being to animal suffering would be the same; compassion, empathy, that's what makes us human ... even if what you believe in differs from mine, let this be a universal guide.
Originally posted by Fatum:excuse me for posting here ..... I am not buddhist ..... I am a catholic, but I am utterly, utterly convinced that animals do have souls ..... and that God's love extends to all of his creation, not just human beings.
And there are many other christians and catholics that hold similar view too. The late Pope John Paul II for example, also affirmed that animals, too, have souls, he went on to remind us to have the same love and compassion for our animal brethrens. There are organizations like the catholic concern for animals, and in many catholic churches around the world, blessings for pets and animals are traditionally conducted by the priests at certain parishes, like st mary's of the angels at bukit batok in Singapore, during the feast day of st francis of assisi, october 4th. St Franscis of Assisi was known to have preached the gospel to the animals, and he's known today as the patron saint of animals. You'll see lots of people bringing in different pets to the church to be blessed by the priests during the occassion.
I think it's pointless to go into the nuances of the doctrines of different religions, but to me, it's very very simple, what does your conscience, your humanity, tells you ? The response of the average human being to animal suffering would be the same; compassion, empathy, that's what makes us human ... even if what you believe in differs from mine, let this be a universal guide.
I am not surprised by your comments, from catholic and christian viewpoints.
The only religion in this world that taught no soul or no self is Buddhism. all the religion in the past and present, all preach of a soul. the only exception is Buddhism.
Originally posted by Fatum:excuse me for posting here ..... I am not buddhist ..... I am a catholic, but I am utterly, utterly convinced that animals do have souls ..... and that God's love extends to all of his creation, not just human beings.
And there are many other christians and catholics that hold similar view too. The late Pope John Paul II for example, also affirmed that animals, too, have souls, he went on to remind us to have the same love and compassion for our animal brethrens. There are organizations like the catholic concern for animals, and in many catholic churches around the world, blessings for pets and animals are traditionally conducted by the priests at certain parishes, like st mary's of the angels at bukit batok in Singapore, during the feast day of st francis of assisi, october 4th. St Franscis of Assisi was known to have preached the gospel to the animals, and he's known today as the patron saint of animals. You'll see lots of people bringing in different pets to the church to be blessed by the priests during the occassion.
I think it's pointless to go into the nuances of the doctrines of different religions, but to me, it's very very simple, what does your conscience, your humanity, tells you ? The response of the average human being to animal suffering would be the same; compassion, empathy, that's what makes us human ... even if what you believe in differs from mine, let this be a universal guide.
What you said above contradicted with the bible. The bible says animals are created by God for humans' consumption. Though I totally disagree. What you said and what the bible said did not tally but I'm glad that you can think by yourself and not follow blindly.
Genesis 9:1-5
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Originally posted by kuji-in:i dun know why my fren insist on that animals have no soul.
he believe so because his pastor told him.
it is so sad.
You friend follow blindly without seeing for himself. I believe he see animals do have pain but refuse to acknowledge it because the book or the pastor says so. He should learn from Fatum who believes what he sees and not what the book or pastor says.
There was an episode in Incredible Tales. It was about a businessman (he showed his face on TV so I believed he was telling the truth, he was a boss of an entertainment company). He said he was haunted by a monkey's spirit. I believed animals do have counciousness or so call spirits.
According to Buddha Gotama, all beings and Buddhas having the same soul known as PureSoul. In view of delusion from PureSoul neither from the beginning nor ending, living beings reincarnated into different soul known as Alaya consciousness. Therefore, slaughtering animals is in fact slaughtering your own PureSoul. All religions promote compassion and loving-kindness to all living beings, as it has a direct effect on eco-system, personal health, blessing, co-existence and harmony of all living beings.
According to Animals Kaiser strong card - PureSoul "Focus your mind, when all doubts have vanished, you will find your true power"
Amitoufo
i wonder why i heard some christians /catholics got advocate to be vegetarian.
to clarify, Buddha kept quiet regarding whether there's soul or not.
Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha and asks:
'Venerable Gotama, is there an Atman ?
The Buddha is silent.
'Then Venerable Gotama, is there no Atman?
Again the Buddha is silent.
Vacchagotta gets up and goes away.
more info: - http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/115.htm
i think understanding the concept is more important than simply to say there's No-self. many zen ppl like to say this. but if there's no understanding, then ppl thinking of no-self, will go around committing evil karma/action. so have to be careful.
i always advocate to use NOT-self, instead of NO self, byThanissaro Bhikkhu
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
/\
Originally posted by Amitayus48:According to Buddha Gotama, all beings and Buddhas having the same soul known as PureSoul. In view of delusion from PureSoul neither from the beginning nor ending, living beings reincarnated into different soul known as Alaya consciousness.
the deluded soul here should be the Mana (7th) consciousness instead of alaya(8th) consciousness.
Laozi got it right when he said 游é‚, instead of ç�µé‚. as the é‚soul is not clearç�µ(å…‰) , it's wondering游. ;)
/\
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:What you said above contradicted with the bible. The bible says animals are created by God for humans' consumption. Though I totally disagree. What you said and what the bible said did not tally but I'm glad that you can think by yourself and not follow blindly.
Genesis 9:1-5
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
In the bible after Noah's flood then can eat meat.
Before that human eat plants.
After Flood God gave permission to eat plants.
Yes God do care for his animals.
Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
Matthew 6:26
I believe animals do not have souls but have lifeforce.
Originally posted by kuji-in:i was talking to a christian fren.
He told me that animals do not have a soul and it is ok to slaughter animals because it will not feel any pain.
i was very upset with his answer. i told him, if he use a stick to beat a dog, would the dog not whine?
we argue over the matter.
So, fellow buddhist frens, what is your take on the matter?
Animals still can feel pain even they do not have souls.
They still have the ability to feel pain.
Why we christians eat meat is because God gave us permission to eat after the Noah's flood.
My pastors used to joke before Noah's flood is vegetarians.
In Buddhism, animals are sentiment beings just like humans. They do not just feel pain when being slaughtered, they also have feelings for their young ones and loved ones just like humans.
‘è°�é�“群生性命微,一般骨肉一般皮,åŠ�å�›èŽ«æ‰“æž�头鸟,å�在巢ä¸æœ›æ¯�归。’
When I was young, I used to catch birds and never have deep thoughts. Till I became a Buddhist, I have deeper thoughts for animals. Just like the poem above, it says animals lifes are as precious as humans, they aslo have bones and skins (their blood is also red like ours), advise not to kill the birds at the trees, have you thought that their youngs who are in the nest looking forward to their mother coming home.
see if one can see this video.
一个有情有义的狗狗~
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=174572605887138&oid=119716261393425&comments
think someone also posted a dog loyal to it's master during the japan quake?
there's also Hachiko, a dog hero who inspired Japan in thinking that friendship can last forever. Hachi was adopted by a college professor who later died while far from Hachiko. Hachiko waited 10 years for his master to come back after which he died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachik%C5%8D
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1028532/
Hachi: A Dog's Tale (or Hachiko: A Dog's Story outside the United States) is a 2009 American drama film based on the true story of the faithful Akita HachikÅ�. It is a remake of the 1987 movie Hachi-kÅ� (HachikÅ� Monogatari) ãƒ�ãƒ�公物語 (literally “The Tale of Hachiko”). It was directed by Lasse Hallström, written by Stephen P. Lindsey and stars Richard Gere, Joan Allen and Sarah Roemer.
very touching story.
Digression.
Soul or no soul... the people in the picture below are dying as we speak.
Every mouthful we eat is at the expense of others on this planet. And this is even more so if we eat meat. We have people who are dying of hunger, and at the same time people who are dying to lose weight.
Planetary emergency
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2167449/global_warming_facts/
The best thing we can do is eat less, eat all your food, and eat vegetarian. The choice is there. Make the right one.
Originally posted by sinweiy:i wonder why i heard some christians /catholics got advocate to be vegetarian.
to clarify, Buddha kept quiet regarding whether there's soul or not.
Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha and asks:
'Venerable Gotama, is there an Atman ?
The Buddha is silent.
'Then Venerable Gotama, is there no Atman?
Again the Buddha is silent.
Vacchagotta gets up and goes away.more info: - http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/115.htm
i think understanding the concept is more important than simply to say there's No-self. many zen ppl like to say this. but if there's no understanding, then ppl thinking of no-self, will go around committing evil karma/action. so have to be careful.
i always advocate to use NOT-self, instead of NO self, byThanissaro Bhikkhu
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
/\
Actually the Buddha did not keep quiet on whether there was an Atman. He clearly demonstrated how there is no Atman or a Tathagata-self (see the highlighted in red passage below) - no such Self or Tathagata can be pinned down anywhere. However he does not deny an individual mindstream of the five aggregates conventionally labelled as self.
What he kept quiet was the notion of a self that can be existent and non-existent. If there is no such self that can be located, or found, to begin with, all the four extreme categories (existence, non-existence, both and neither) are effectively denied.
By saying, soul does not exist, a person may be prone to an nihilistic, materialistic understand that 'upon death, the self ceases, as there is no self that can persist'. By saying soul exists, a person will cling to an eternalistic understanding that 'upon death, the soul goes on'.
Both these are false views that Buddha did not want Vacchagota to fall into. The understanding of Anatta is that there is no 'self' that can be pinned down inside or beyond the five skandhas, so there can be no eternal self, or a self that annihilates, for there is only ever a continuity of process and dependent origination.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now then, Master Gotama, is the cosmos eternal?"
"That has not been declared by me, Vaccha: 'The cosmos is eternal.'"
"Well then, Master Gotama, is the cosmos not eternal?"
"Vaccha, that too has not been declared by me: 'The cosmos is not eternal.'"
"Then is the cosmos finite?"... "Is the cosmos infinite?"... "Is the body the same as the soul?"... "Is the body one thing, and the soul another?"... "Does the Tathagata exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata not exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death?"
"Vaccha, that too has not been declared by me: 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death."
"Now, Master Gotama, what is the cause, what is the reason why — when wanderers of other sects are asked in this way, they answer that 'The cosmos is eternal' or 'The cosmos is not eternal' or 'The cosmos is finite' or 'The cosmos is infinite' or 'The body is the same as the soul' or 'The body is one thing and the soul another' or 'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death" or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death,' yet when Master Gotama is asked in this way, he does not answer that 'The cosmos is eternal' or 'The cosmos is not eternal' or 'The cosmos is finite' or 'The cosmos is infinite' or 'The body is the same as the soul' or 'The body is one thing and the soul another' or 'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death" or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"Vaccha, the members of other sects assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
"They assume feeling to be the self...
"They assume perception to be the self...
"They assume fabrications to be the self...
"They assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. That is why, when asked in this way, they answer that 'The cosmos is eternal'... or that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.'
"But the Tathagata, worthy and rightly self-awakened, does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
"He does not assume feeling to be the self...
"He does not assume perception to be the self...
"He does not assume fabrications to be the self...
"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. That is why, when asked in this way, he does not answer that 'The cosmos is eternal'... or that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.'"
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer, getting up from his seat, went to Ven. Maha Moggallana and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he [addressed the same questions to Ven. Maha Moggallana and received exactly the same explanation].
"Amazing, Master Moggallana! Astounding! How the meaning and phrasing of the teacher and disciple agree, coincide, and do not diverge from one another with regard to the supreme teaching! Just now, Master Moggallana, I went to Gotama the contemplative and, on arrival, asked him about this matter, and he answered me with the same words, the same phrasing, as Master Moggallana. Amazing, Master Moggallana! Astounding! How the meaning and phrasing of the teacher and disciple agree, coincide, and do not diverge from one another with regard to the supreme teaching!"
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Vesali, in the Great Wood, at the Hall of the Gabled Pavilion. At that time Ven. Anuradha was staying not far from the Blessed One in a wilderness hut.
Then a large number of wandering sectarians went to Ven. Anuradha and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to Ven. Anuradha, "Friend Anuradha, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described with [one of] these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death."
When this was said, Ven. Anuradha said to the wandering sectarians, "Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death."
When this was said, the wandering sectarians said to Ven. Anuradha, "This monk is either a newcomer, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish & inexperienced." So the wandering sectarians, addressing Ven. Anuradha as they would a newcomer or a fool, got up from their seats and left.
Then not long after the wandering sectarians had left, this thought occurred to Ven. Anuradha: "If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, so that no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing me?"
Then Ven. Anuradha went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Just now I was staying not far from the Blessed One in a wilderness hut. Then a large number of wandering sectarians came and... said to me, 'Friend Anuradha, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described with [one of] these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death.'
"When this was said, I said to them, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death.'
"When this was said, the wandering sectarians said to me, 'This monk is either a newcomer, not long gone forth, or else an elder who is foolish & inexperienced.' So, addressing me as they would a newcomer or a fool, they got up from their seats and left.
"Then not long after the wandering sectarians had left, this thought occurred to me: 'If I am questioned again by those wandering sectarians, how will I answer in such a way that will I speak in line with what the Blessed One has said, will not misrepresent the Blessed One with what is unfactual, will answer in line with the Dhamma, and no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma will have grounds for criticizing me?'"
"What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"Is feeling constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"Is perception constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"Is consciousness constant or inconstant?
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."
Originally posted by zero thought:Digression.
Soul or no soul... the people in the picture below are dying as we speak.Every mouthful we eat is at the expense of others on this planet. And this is even more so if we eat meat. We have people who are dying of hunger, and at the same time people who are dying to lose weight.
Planetary emergency
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2167449/global_warming_facts/The best thing we can do is eat less, eat all your food, and eat vegetarian. The choice is there. Make the right one.
I deeply sympathise the africans.
What are consciousness,fabrication and perceptions in buddhism perspective?
Originally posted by Millenium Falcon:What is consciousness in buddhism perspective?
Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, do you too know of this Teaching, the wrong view of the bhikkhu Sati, the son of a fisherman, on account of which he misrepresents us and also destroys himself and accumulates much suffering?"
"No, venerable sir. In various ways we have been taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness."
"Good, bhikkhus! Good that you know the Dhamma taught by me. In various ways I have taught that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, by holding to this wrong view, misrepresents us and destroys himself and accumulates much demerit, and it will be for his suffering for a long time.
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire, fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.
"Bhikkhus, do you see, This has arisen?" "Yes, venerable sir". "Do you see it arises supported by That?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, Do you see if the support ceases, the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."
"Bhikkhus, when you are not sure whether something has arisen do doubts arise?" "Yes, venerable sir." "When you are not sure why something has arisen, do doubts arise?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, when you are not sure that with ceasing of a certain support, that the arisen too would cease, do doubts arise?" "Yes, venerable sir."
"Bhikkhus, do your doubts fade when you see with right wisdom, that something has arisen?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, do your doubts fade when you see with right wisdom, that something arises with a support?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, do your doubts fade when you sees with right wisdom that with the cessation of its supports, the arisen also ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."
"Bhikkhus, This has arisen - are your doubts dispelled about that?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, This has arisen with That as support - are your doubts dispelled about that?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, when that support ceases, the arising too ceases - are your doubts dispelled about that?" "Yes, venerable sir."
"Bhikkhus, do you clearly see, as it really is, with right wisdom, this is arising?." "Yes,venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, do you clearly see, with right wisdom, that this arises supported?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, do you clearly see, with right wisdom, that when the support ceases the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."
"Bhikkkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, do you understand this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you do not covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, would you then know this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "Yes, venerable sir."
yes, tis why it's best to be clear that Buddha rejected both extreme. as one can be mistaken as nihilistic or eternalism, is what i'm getting at. i think why buddha stress more on not-self is because of our world, ppl are more attached to eternalism. if He go to another world where ppl are more attached to no self, He would have stress more on true self to break their attachment.
our pureland school is more incline to the brilliant existence side than the true emptiness side, so people can take birth there. but nevertheless, they are one.
The Vimalakirti Sutra states:
"Although he knows that Buddha Lands / Are void like living
beings / He goes on practicing the Pure Land (Dharma) / to teach and
convert men." (Charles Luk, The Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, p. 88.)
i read Buddha was silient to Vacchagotta in Samyutta Nikaya, then Vacchagotta left and Buddha explain to Ananda on the concept. u mean after Vacchagotta left, Vacchagotta came back and Buddha explain to Vacchagotta about the concept of not self?
ps: i reserve and i prefer not-self, as in later part Buddha start to teach in Tathagatagarbha doctrine, Lotus Sutra and Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra on "True-self".
/\
yes, I think so..
and yes, luminosity and emptiness must be seen as inseparable. luminous, but empty, not having substance. not having substance but luminous... all appearances are as such