Loppon Namdrol:
I am simply reporting what Garab Dorje, Padmasambhava, Shri Singha et al actually say. I don't need to interpret anything.
In
Hīnay�na, Shakyamuni taught arhatship as buddhahood. In Mah�yana, he
taught that arhatship was not buddhahood, and was inferior to
buddhahood. And that in fact, after attaining arhatship, arhats would be
roused from their nirodhasamapatti at some point and then they must
traverse the paths of stages of Mah�y�na. So, was the Buddha lying in
Hin�y�na when he told his followers that arhatship was it?
In
Vajray�na, in the Samputa tantra it is clarified that there are three
stages of Buddhahood. Two stages of Buddhas who do not recognize all
phenomena as being the display of their own wisdom and the thireenth
bhumi, Vajradhara, where all phenomena are so recognized. Does this make
the Buddha a liar about Mah�y�na?
In Dzochen, there are
enumerated another three stages, three more stages of those who dwell
within wisdom, rendering the thirteenth bhumi a lower stage of
buddhahood. Does this make the Buddha a liar about Vajray�na?
In
any event, this notion of "Buddhahood that reverts to the basis [gzhi,
not kun gzhi]" as an inferior buddhahood that is not complete is well
attested in Dzogchen. It has to be the case because as Garab Dorje
points out, all sentient beings in the previous eon attain buddhahood by
the end of the eon. This is explicitly stated by Garab Dorje in the
commentary I mentioned to above.
But to illustrate my point
further, the Drikung view is Dzogchen is definitely subordinated. For
example, Jigten Sumgon states in Gongcik: “The supreme realization is
not touched by the three great ones.” This is echoe of a statement by
Gampopoa to his nephew, Gomchung.
But I don't during Jigten
Sumgon's time Nyingthig was wide spread. At this point in history
Nyingma was very much on the decline.
Wah this thread...
I got questions to ask ...
Why is there a distinction of Arhats and Bodhisattvas?
Buddha discovered the initial path and pointed the way out, and the arhats followed it, but both leads to Nirvana and enlightenment.
But bodhisattvas have higher goal: to reach out to more sentient beings and lead them to the right path... But if the arhats take in disciples, teach dharmas to laity, aren't they are bodhisattvas as well...? Why it sound inferior in the Mahayana context? Be it arhats or bodhisattvas... all leads to Buddhahood.
What is Dzogchen....? Is it a dharma door? Sorry and the last paragraphs I do not know the names...
correction. Buddha did not teach Arahatship as Buddhahood in Hinayana or Theravada or whatever labels. In Theravada, Buddhahood and Arhatship are cleared defined and spelt out. At that time, there were no Theravada or Mahayana. anyway since the goal of most people is to get out of samsara, Buddha taught the path. I have talked to a Bhante in Theravada tradition, he knew what is arhatship and the path to Buddha. but that is not to say there are no monks in Theravada that cannot practise the path of Buddhahood, it depends on their aspirations really.
You have to be clear. The aspirations of Buddhahood are different from those aspirations for the common folks like you and me. I dare say most people would like an end of suffering ie getting out of samsara. But if you are to aspire to be a Buddha, you need to undergo much more than the path to Arhatship. there are no right and wrong on this, only your aspirations.
I want to become an arhat.
During Buddha era, basically, all its followers then from ascetics practitioners were liberated to arhat states and gradually, these arhats continues to follow the skilfull means of Buddha expediency to upgrade them to Mahayana. Finally, as stated in the Lotus Sutra, achieving the only one vehicle of Buddhaness, as all the other vehicles are merely expediency, to reach the final goal. Similarly, for some, like the secular education, the kindergarden is just the earlier stage designed to achieve the final goal of professorship/doctorate level.
In spite of the above, there are many who bypass some level as their aptitude is tremendously high in view of their many past lives of merits accrued. Another aspects is the hardworked of practice with good teachers, that pushed all their scattering merits into this lifespan, to attain fruition of buddhaness
Basically is emptiness, the decrees of emptiness
the word arhat is literally translated in pali or sanskirt as "no more learning / æ— å¦" or graduated( from six realm). in Mahayana, we got 10 realms (including the 4 noble realms). Mahayana sutra name the "upgraded" arahats as "Great" Arahats. Great mean Maha. that mean they are no more learning from Mahayana. 'Graduated' from the 10 realms. not hinayana. :)
/\
Its not polite to use the term hinayana because hina means lowly or derogatory.
There are very few people who can become arahants.
I am quite sure none of the people on this forum can achieve it in this lifetime.
Of course, I may be wrong.
So, lets not worry about something which we can never achieve.
Let's be good Buddhists, keeping the 5 precepts and treating people with kindness & compassion.
Reducing greed, hatred & delusion.
Have a nice life!
it's ok if u know the purpose/real meaning.
BTW, i do not always equal Theravada to be hinayana. Both Mahayana and Theravada can also have "mahayanist" and "hinayanist". they are mentalities per se.
the mentality of the hinayana WITHIN the Mahayana school would want to "see" that one do not breach the precept with their Bodies. while the mahayana mentality would want to "see" that one do not breach the precept with their MIND, which is even more difficult per se.
as we all know the teaching of egolessness or selflessness of person (Skt. pudgalanairatmya).
but have you learned the egolesseness or selflessness of phenomena (Skt. dharma-nairatmya)? understanding, selflessness of phenomena, you accomplished selflessness of person. but understand selflessness of person might not accomplish selflessness of phenomena.
so base on my experience on Hua Yen Sutra/Buddha vehicle(一乘法), and seeing people's reactions, i had notice the difference between hinayana and mahayana not base on the apparent or what people had wrote or journalized, that said Theravada is Theravada/Arahathood and Mahayana is Mahayana/Bodhisattvahood. or Theravada is hinayana.
No. i think within Theravada, there's mahayana And hinayana. And within Mahayana, there's hinayana and mahayana. All in one, one in All. note i use cap for the 'm' and 'M'.
What differences?
hinayana cultivator - emphasis on the apparent meaning of what Buddha said; emphasis on sunyata of self; clear distinction between Buddhism from worldly dharma; prefer to meditate base on stillness of body; avoid polutions best as possible.
mahayana cultivator - emphasis more on the significant than apparent; emphasis on sunyata of self And Dharma itself; able to blend/use worldly dharma to convert into Buddhadharma; able to meditate amidst daily activities. ie after they had cultivated bodily stillness in the mountain, they re-enter 'polutions' of urban area to enhance their meditative stillness. such standard of stillness of the mind is more powerful.
so sometime i can fall into the hinayana category and sometimes in mahayana category. but look forward to practice like mahayana standard, while hinayana is my foundation.
imho,
/\
Yah I think out of many practitioners only a few can attained arhatship.
Is there any arhat in this world?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:An arhat is someone very worthy of respect, offering and homage even by a Mahayana followers…
Is there arhat today? Yes I believe so.
Cos some mahayana practioners did not even realise emptiness of self or are aiming for pureland buddhism and not enlightenment.
Of course aiming for pureland is good also since Amitabha buddha will teach u there.
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:
Cos some mahayana practioners did not even realise emptiness of self or are aiming for pureland buddhism and not enlightenment.Of course aiming for pureland is good also since Amitabha buddha will teach u there.
cannot like that say. it's more inconceivable than word can say regarding pureland path. once born in pureland, one is at least an 8th stage bodhisattva(Mahayana non-retrogress state). those got practice one, their attainment will be double by Amitabha when Amitabha shine His light on you during the time of rebirth.
and, conventional saying, there are 4 different "lands" for different level. first is for ordinary people, second for arahat realisation, third for bodhisattva realisation, fourth for Buddhas. but ultimately, and inconceivable, there's no level, as Pureland is land of Equality. Your power is equal to Amiatbha. and once born there, one's already beyond a "resemblance Buddha" of the ten realm. the four lands can also be seen as the three bodies of Buddha, i.e Dharmakaya for the fouth, Sambhogakaya for the third and the rest nirmanakaya. t'is why pureland path is for all class of different level.
some with realisation also cannot conceive the Pureland path. as one is using a thinking mind. i can relate this to Dzogchen by Loppon Namdrol.
Dzogchen is not rocket science. It is very easy to understand if you have an open mind and you do not go around complicating things.
Sometimes, the biggest obstacle to understanding Dzogchen that people have is Buddhism, so they constantly try to compare Dzogchen with the vehicles of cause and result. This causes them to automatically deviate. Dzogchen is completely beyond cause and result. All notions of paths and stages are completely irrelevant in Dzogchen.
There are mainly one thing that matters in Dzogchen -- whether or not you are a fortunate person. If you are a fortunate person you will meet a master who has experience who can demonstrate to you your real condition and the methods to discover that for yourself. You do not have to be an educated person like me who has studied way too many books. There is a saying in Dzogchen, an illterate person who has personal experience of their real state will gain liberation far sooner than a Pandita who is expert in a hundred dharma systems but does not have that experience. Dzogchen is not intellectual. It is based on personal experience. You do not have to be literate, or particularly well educated to have that experience. Our friend adinatha will tell you that realization of Dzogchen based on the blessings of the lineage. But actually, it is based on recognizing a personal experience. Maybe we mean the same thing. Certainly having that recognition is wonderful thing, inexpressible, a cause for faith and a great blessing. But collecting blessings and reciting supplications will never get you that experience. Only an experienced master who has that experience will able to introduce it to you in a direct personal way. That is the best blessing.
N
/\
do all mahayana followers, including monks and nuns, all strive for Buddhahood?
_/\_
According to Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, there are 2 main stereotypes and prejudices that have divided followers of the two main forms of Buddhism:
(1) Arahants, and Therav�din Buddhists, are concerned exclusively with their own salvation as opposed to the benefit of others; they have a narrow fixation on personal liberation because they are "fearful of birth and death" and therefore have little compassion for others and don't undertake activities intended to benefit them.
(2) Followers of the bodhisattva ideal, and Mah�y�na Buddhists, are so much involved in social projects aimed at benefiting others that they don't take up the practice that the Buddha assigned to his disciples, namely, the taming of the mind and the development of insight. They have overwhelmed themselves with social duties and forsaken meditation practice.
Buddha’s arahant diciples did not just selfishly reaped the benefits of the path and did nothing for others. In the suttas, there were many who became great teachers in their own right who were capable of guiding others towards liberation. The best known among them are SÄ�riputta, MahÄ�kaccÄ�na, MoggÄ�llana, and Ä€nanda. For 400 years, the Buddhist texts were preserved orally, transmitted from teachers to pupils, all for the purpose of preserving the good Dharma and Vinaya in the world.
Although the bodhisattva vows to work for the welfare of others, their efforts are superficial if they are not motivated and supported by true bodhicitta. The ability to give materials and security are worthy but do not equal in value to the gift of the Dharma. The gift of Dharma leads to permanent extinction of suffering which requires skills beyond social service. In addition, the bodhisattva through the perfections of meditation and wisdom , through contemplative practice, also seek out lifestyle similar to that of one seeking arahantship.
In a nutshell, the lifestyles of the two are not very different. True Buddhism needs all three: Buddhas, arahants and bodhisattvas. It needs Buddhas to discover and teach the path to liberation; it needs arahants to follow the path and confirm that the Dharma does indeed lead to liberation, adorning the teaching with examples of those who lead the purest holy life; it needs bodhisattvas to bring forth the resolve to perfect those qualities that will enable them at some point in the future, near or distant, to become Buddhas themselves and once again turn the unsurpassed Wheel of the Dharma.
Quote from Ajahn Chah:
“Don’t be an arahant, don’t be a bodhisattva, don’t be anything at all—if you are anything at all, you will suffer.”
nice one Emaho.
Buddha’s arahant diciples did not just selfishly reaped the benefits of the path and did nothing for others. In the suttas, there were many who became great teachers in their own right who were capable of guiding others towards liberation. The best known among them are SÄ�riputta, MahÄ�kaccÄ�na, MoggÄ�llana, and Ä€nanda. For 400 years, the Buddhist texts were preserved orally, transmitted from teachers to pupils, all for the purpose of preserving the good Dharma and Vinaya in the world.
yes they are Great Arahants. they are equal to 'Buddhas', Bodhisattvas.
Although the bodhisattva vows to work for the welfare of others, their efforts are superficial if they are not motivated and supported by true bodhicitta.
right on!
In a nutshell, the lifestyles of the two are not very different. True Buddhism needs all three: Buddhas, arahants and bodhisattvas. It needs Buddhas to discover and teach the path to liberation; it needs arahants to follow the path and confirm that the Dharma does indeed lead to liberation, adorning the teaching with examples of those who lead the purest holy life; it needs bodhisattvas to bring forth the resolve to perfect those qualities that will enable them at some point in the future, near or distant, to become Buddhas themselves and once again turn the unsurpassed Wheel of the Dharma.
yes like a clock, u need the long hand, the short hand, the numbers to work as one so as to tell time. one is turn the dharma wheel using the teaching æ£è½¬æ³•è½® and the other is using the practice of the body 身转. lay persons also help support the ordained in term of food, daily products etc. :)
Quote from Ajahn Chah:
“Don’t be an arahant, don’t be a bodhisattva, don’t be anything at all—if you are anything at all, you will suffer.”
true. can add inside the Daily Buddhist Verses .
do all mahayana followers, including monks and nuns, all strive for Buddhahood?
yes, but i'm not sure how true is their bodhicitta in that person.
/\
_/\_ sinweiy
As with the Bodhisattva, the Arahant’s life is fully dedicated to the end of suffering. Both the activities of the Bodhisattva and the Arahant are not determined by Self or Ego, but by compassion and wisdom.
Different people need different teaching methods. All people are equal because they have the same self-nature. Ultimately, all methods are equal as they all lead to the same goal of enlightenment or nirvana. Once we understand this, we will no longer discriminate.
i don't discriminate even sentient beings let alone arahats. :) the word "compassion and wisdom" can be quite general. there's a saying that there's no goal and Bodhisattva defer nirvana.
like the saying:
from Ajahn Chah:
“Don’t be an arahant, don’t be a bodhisattva, don’t be anything at all—if you are anything at all, you will suffer.”
if there's a goal, u will suffer too.
yet yes i agree, all will lead to the same "goal" in the very end. i got other views...so won't comment too much.
/\
To sinweiy: my suggestion is to base your practice should focus more on seeing the nature and essence of mind, and understand compassion from there.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:To sinweiy: my suggestion is to base your practice should focus more on seeing the nature and essence of mind, and understand compassion from there.
it's base on the absolute essence that the compassion is boundless, unconditional without reference point. though still have different levels/form as that in :-
http://luminousemptiness.blogspot.com/search/label/compassion
it'll be suffering if still have reference point of me and others. bodhicitta is more than the ordinary 'pityful' compassion.
always best to tally with past ancient masters' texts or from someone well established.
The Buddha became enlightened through developing boundless compassion. Our path too, should be based on compassionate commitment to free all living beings from suffering. True compassion should be directed impartially to those close to us, those whom we perceive as strangers, and especially to those whom we think of as our enemies. These teachings allow us to achieve freedom from suffering and ignorance. In an absolute sense, compassion is the awakening nature of the mind. - Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche
/\
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Loppon Namdrol:
In Hīnay�na, Shakyamuni taught arhatship as buddhahood. In Mah�yana, he taught that arhatship was not buddhahood, and was inferior to buddhahood. And that in fact, after attaining arhatship, arhats would be roused from their nirodhasamapatti at some point and then they must traverse the paths of stages of Mah�y�na. So, was the Buddha lying in Hin�y�na when he told his followers that arhatship was it?
In Vajray�na, in the Samputa tantra it is clarified that there are three stages of Buddhahood. Two stages of Buddhas who do not recognize all phenomena as being the display of their own wisdom and the thireenth bhumi, Vajradhara, where all phenomena are so recognized. Does this make the Buddha a liar about Mah�y�na?
Didn't know that during Buddha's life, there was already Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana.
The goal of Buddhism is cessation of suffering - the attainment of Nirvana, not arhatship or buddhahood or bodhisattva.