Originally posted by Almond Cookies:I want to become an arhat.
try to be Jabba the Hutt 1st lah..................
arahat, bodhisattva, buddhahood - why no one attempted to highlight the meaning of these before talking about Mahayana's view of arahat?
appears to me like the blind leading the blind ..... with even more confusing themselves with existence, universe, god and what not?
i think people presume it's a general knowledge for Buddhist and since this is a Buddhism forum and also it might be quite a sensitive topic, when Mahayana is mentioned.
i'm into this,
http://www.jenchen.org.sg/understa.htm
The difference between deities and Buddha
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:i think people presume it's a general knowledge for Buddhist and since this is a Buddhism forum and also it might be quite a sensitive topic, when Mahayana is mentioned.
i'm into this,
http://www.jenchen.org.sg/understa.htm
The difference between deities and Buddha
/\
This may be Buddhism forum but don't make assumption and not every Buddhist knows or is not confused. For any meaningful and orderly debate, discussion or exchange, always start with a common understanding, not assumption. That's where all the troubles in the world begin.
On sensitive matters – we go into denial state if we avoid or suppress or pretend. Buddhism, when it became a religion, acquires the same cancer as every other religion – deviation, corruption, subversion of the original founder’s ideas!
Are you a follower of Buddha or follower of founder of schools or traditions???
Arahat: free from craving, aversion/anger, and ignorance pertaining to the delusion of self. Realizes the emptiness of self. Freedom from suffering and uncontrolled cycles of rebirth in samsara.
Bodhisattva: aka. Bodhisatta in Pali,
Theravada understanding: Bodhisattas are aspirants to attain Buddhahood. Did not speak much about what Bodhisattas realize or practice, apart from the cultivation of paramitas. The only Bodhisatta mentioned is Mettaya (sanskrit. Maitreya) Bodhisatta, who currently resides in Tusita heaven waiting for birth to become the next Buddha.
Mahayana understanding: Bodhisattvas are aspirants to attain Buddhahood. Apart from the cultivation of paramitas which are very important to a Bodhisattva, the Bodhisattva can be categorized into either pre-bhumi or entered-bhumi Bodhisattvas. There are ten stages, bhumis, to attain Buddhahood. The pre-bhumi Bodhisattva engages in practices such as the cultivation of paramitas and contemplates on the nature of reality to obtain insight, however he has not attained realization. The entered-bhumi Bodhisattva obtains the realization of the twofold emptiness: the emptiness of self, plus the emptiness of objects. Other than Maitreya Bodhisattva, many Bodhisattvas are popular in Mahayana texts: Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva represents great compassion, Manjusri Bodhisattva represents great wisdom, Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva represents great vows, Samantabhadra Bodhisattva represents joyful giving and great activity.
Buddhahood:
Theravada understanding: Buddhas are fully awakened beings, who are not only liberated but are also omniscient, confers perfection of paramitas, mastery of psychic powers, and a whole lot of qualities. Does not speak about what is the difference of realization between Buddha and Arhat, apart from brief and vague mentions in suttas like 'arhats have understood things' and 'Buddhas have understood things all the way to the end', etc.
Mahayana understanding: Buddhas are fully awakened beings, who are not only liberated but are also omniscient, confers perfection of paramitas, mastery of psychic powers, and a whole lot of qualities. Has perfected all skillful means for the sake of delivering mass sentient beings to the shore of liberation. Bodhisattvas and Buddhas have deeper understanding of emptiness, and they do not rest in the cessation of feelings and perceptions but can manifest freely to liberate sentient beings. They abide in the Nirvana of non-abidance, neither clinging to samsara nor cessation.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Arahat: free from craving, aversion/anger, and ignorance pertaining to the delusion of self. Realizes the emptiness of self. Freedom from suffering and uncontrolled cycles of rebirth in samsara.
Bodhisattva: aka. Bodhisatta in Pali,
Theravada understanding: Bodhisattas are aspirants to attain Buddhahood. Did not speak much about what Bodhisattas realize or practice, apart from the cultivation of paramitas. The only Bodhisatta mentioned is Mettaya (sanskrit. Maitreya) Bodhisatta, who currently resides in Tusita heaven waiting for birth to become the next Buddha.
Mahayana understanding: Bodhisattvas are aspirants to attain Buddhahood. Apart from the cultivation of paramitas which are very important to a Bodhisattva, the Bodhisattva can be categorized into either pre-bhumi or entered-bhumi Bodhisattvas. There are ten stages, bhumis, to attain Buddhahood. The pre-bhumi Bodhisattva engages in practices such as the cultivation of paramitas and contemplates on the nature of reality to obtain insight, however he has not attained realization. The entered-bhumi Bodhisattva obtains the realization of the twofold emptiness: the emptiness of self, plus the emptiness of objects.
Buddhahood:
Theravada understanding: Buddhas are fully awakened beings, who are not only liberated but are also omniscient, confers perfection of paramitas, mastery of psychic powers, and a whole lot of qualities. Does not speak about what is the difference of realization between Buddha and Arhat, apart from brief and vague mentions in suttas like 'arhats have understood things' and 'Buddhas have understood things all the way to the end', etc.
Mahayana understanding: Buddhas are fully awakened beings, who are not only liberated but are also omniscient, confers perfection of paramitas, mastery of psychic powers, and a whole lot of qualities. Has perfected all skillful means for the sake of delivering mass sentient beings to the shore of liberation. Bodhisattvas and Buddhas have deeper understanding of emptiness, and they do not rest in the cessation of feelings and perceptions but can manifest freely to liberate sentient beings. They abide in the Nirvana of non-abidance, neither clinging to samsara nor cessation.
Thank you AEN for the meaning of arahat, bodhisattva, buddhahood and Theravada/Mahayana understanding. From here, I hope the discussion is more focus than before.
Is there a Mahayana understanding of arahat?
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Thank you AEN for the meaning of arahat, bodhisattva, buddhahood and Theravada/Mahayana understanding. From here, I hope the discussion is more focus than before.
Is there a Mahayana understanding of arahat?
Generally same as Theravada. But we do not think arahat has reached their final destination, we think that arhats eventually are roused from their nirodha samapatti (cessation of perception and feelings) by the Buddhas to continue their path towards Buddhahood.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:http://uqconnect.net/slsoc/bsq/budchr0.htm
The Existence of the Universe
In their attempts to prove God’s existence, Christians will sometimes say “The universe didn’t just happen, someone must have made it and therefore there must be a creator God.” There is a major flaw in this argument. When it starts to rain ~e do not ask “Who is making it rain?” because we know that rain is caused not by someone but by something – natural phenomena like heat, evaporation, precipitation, etc. When we see smooth stones in a river, we do not ask “Who polished those stones?” because we know that the smooth surface of the stones was caused not by someone but by something – natural causes like the abrasive action of water and sand.
All of these things have a cause (or causes) but this need not be a being. It is the same with the universe – it was not brought into being by a God but by natural phenomena like nuclear fission, gravity, inertia, etc. However, even if we believe that a divine being is needed to explain how the universe came into existence, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? Perhaps it was created by the Hindu God, the God of Islam or one of the gods worshipped by tribal religions. After all most religions, not only Christianity, claim that their God or gods created the universe.
The Argument from Design
In response to the above refutation, the Christian will maintain that the universe does not merely exist but its existence shows perfect design. There is, a Christian might say, an order and balance which point to its having been designed by a higher intelligence, and that this higher intelligence is God. But as before, there are some problems with this argument.
Firstly, how does the Christian know that it was his God who is behind creation? Perhaps it was the gods of non-Christian religions who designed and created the universe.
Secondly, how does the Christian know that only one God designed everything? In fact, as the universe is so intricate and complex we could expect it to need the intelligence of several, perhaps dozens, of gods to design it. So if anything the argument from design proves that there are many gods, not one as Christians claim.
Next, we would have to ask, is the universe perfectly designed? We must ask this because if a perfect God designed and created the universe, then that universe should be perfect. Let us first look at inanimate phenomena to see whether they show perfect design. Rain gives us pure water to drink but sometimes it rains too much and people lose their lives, their homes and their means of livelihood in floods. At other times it doesn’t rain at all and millions die in drought and famine. Is this perfect design? The mountains give us joy as we see them reaching up into the sky. But landslides ~nd volcanic eruptions have for centuries caused havoc and death. Is this perfect design? The gentle breezes cool us but storms and tornadoes repeatedly cause death and destruction. Is this perfect design? These and other natural calamities prove that inanimate phenomena do not exhibit perfect design and therefore that they were not created by a perfect God.
Now let us look at animate phenomena to see whether they reveal perfect design. At a superficial glance, nature seems to be beautiful and harmonious; all creatures are provided for and each has its task to perform. However, as any biologist will confirm, nature is utterly ruthless. To live, each creature has to feed on other creatures and struggle to avoid being eaten by other creatures. In nature, there is no time for pity, love or mercy. If a loving God designed everything, why did such a cruel design result? The animal kingdom is not only imperfect in the ethical sense, it is also imperfect in that it often goes wrong. Every year ~lions of babies are born with physical or mental disabilities, or are stillborn or die soon after birth. Why would a perfect creator God design such terrible things?
So if there is design in the universe, much of it is faulty and cruel. This would seem to indicate that the universe was not created by a perfect all-loving God.
hmm can use as bullets for me... :X
Originally posted by I No Stupid:This may be Buddhism forum but don't make assumption and not every Buddhist knows or is not confused. For any meaningful and orderly debate, discussion or exchange, always start with a common understanding, not assumption. That's where all the troubles in the world begin.
On sensitive matters – we go into denial state if we avoid or suppress or pretend. Buddhism, when it became a religion, acquires the same cancer as every other religion – deviation, corruption, subversion of the original founder’s ideas!
Are you a follower of Buddha or follower of founder of schools or traditions???
both. in this forum, if u wan to know, u ask, and if u wan and have the time, u reply or post the basic Buddhist information (not that it's not already many information out there in the net). can't expect ppl to do this do that.
i wonder r u WeeShun, the taiwan guy, ...sound like him
/\
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Generally same as Theravada. But we do not think arahat has reached their final destination, we think that arhats eventually are roused from their nirodha samapatti (cessation of perception and feelings) by the Buddhas to continue their path towards Buddhahood.
Who are "we" in your reply?
What do you call one who has ceased suffering? That is, one who achieved the 3rd NT?
Originally posted by sinweiy:
both. in this forum, if u wan to know, u ask, and if u wan and have the time, u reply or post the basic Buddhist information (not that it's not already many information out there in the net). can't expect ppl to do this do that.i wonder r u WeeShun, the taiwan guy, ...sound like him
/\
Whoever starts a thread has a theme in mind and wants to draw discussion. While there are plenty of materials avaliable in the Net or even if a similar topic was discussed before, it would still be necessary to post some basic fundamentals (core) before spinning a long yarn. If the purpose of the forum is not discussion but to refer to published materials, then there is no need for a forum! Also, note that there are people who may come into the forum with no fundamental or prior knowledge, may not Buddhist but may be curious about what these 'Buddhists' are talking about. Therefore, it would be helpful to state some basic information, not assumption. Unless, it is the intention of this forum to be exclusive to Buddhists only and parochial in outlook and thereby not helping to give the gift of the dhamma, then one takes a similar stand like other 'exclusive' religious forums!
Who is WeeShun?
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Who are "we" in your reply?
What do you call one who has ceased suffering? That is, one who achieved the 3rd NT?
Sorry, I meant Mahayana.
One who ceased suffering is liberated.
Arhants, pratyekabuddhas, post-bhumi bodhisattvas and buddhas are liberated.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Whoever starts a thread has a theme in mind and wants to draw discussion. While there are plenty of materials avaliable in the Net or even if a similar topic was discussed before, it would still be necessary to post some basic fundamentals (core) before spinning a long yarn. If the purpose of the forum is not discussion but to refer to published materials, then there is no need for a forum! Also, note that there are people who may come into the forum with no fundamental or prior knowledge, may not Buddhist but may be curious about what these 'Buddhists' are talking about. Therefore, it would be helpful to state some basic information, not assumption. Unless, it is the intention of this forum to be exclusive to Buddhists only and parochial in outlook and thereby not helping to give the gift of the dhamma, then one takes a similar stand like other 'exclusive' religious forums!
Who is WeeShun?
u can use the search engine(top) provided in the forum to help u. i think the info were posted before.
/\
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Generally same as Theravada. But we do not think arahat has reached their final destination, we think that arhats eventually are roused from their nirodha samapatti (cessation of perception and feelings) by the Buddhas to continue their path towards Buddhahood.
why does Mahayana think that way?
Then what's the point of Buddha Shakyamuni preaching his Dhamma 2500 years ago? Might as well teach the Mahayana way/vehicle because ultimately since Mahayana understands/thinks that everyone will be a Buddha eventually. But one cannot say 'oh it's because of different capabilities of the people that time, so that's why Buddha Shakyamuni taught it the easy way(Theravada)' . Cos if u say that, then it's no point at all, still, Arahats attain their nirvana, then come back on the Mahayana path. What a waste of time and effort even by the Buddha himself, no? It's like 1 whole big circle, coming back to square one(cycle of rebirth) after how many eons and eons in their nirvana for Arahats.
Originally posted by whylikethatah:why does Mahayana think that way?
Then what's the point of Buddha Shakyamuni preaching his Dhamma 2500 years ago? Might as well teach the Mahayana way/vehicle because ultimately since Mahayana understands/thinks that everyone will be a Buddha eventually. But one cannot say 'oh it's because of different capabilities of the people that time, so that's why Buddha Shakyamuni taught it the easy way(Theravada)' . Cos if u say that, then it's no point at all, still, Arahats attain their nirvana, then come back on the Mahayana path. What a waste of time and effort even by the Buddha himself, no? It's like 1 whole big circle, coming back to square one(cycle of rebirth) after how many eons and eons in their nirvana for Arahats.
It is not a waste of effort because if Arahats come back, they are still liberated, but as Bodhisattvas. So it is not square one.
My Master (Ven Shen Kai) was Rahula's successor in Buddha Shakyamuni's lifetime. In other words, he took over as the leader of Rahula's students. Rahula's practice is innate mind practice.... it is the practice of awareness and nobody knew much about that group because they are silent in nature. That is why the top disciples of Buddha are well known and their students are also known, but Rahula and his students are a bit seclusive.*
Anyway, my Master said that there are 50 arahats (Rahula's students) who have returned and (most) are residing in South East Asia. Many of my Master's students, including his current day successor who lives in Taiwan, was one of those.
*91. Other than this, we know very little about Rahula. He does not seem to have been prominent at being either a Dharma teacher or a trainer of other monks. It is likely that Rahula kept himself in the background so that he could not be accused of taking advantage of being the son of the Enlightened One. - http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/disciples13.htm
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It is not a waste of effort because if Arahats come back, they are still liberated, but as Bodhisattvas. So it is not square one.
My Master (Ven Shen Kai) was Rahula's successor in Buddha Shakyamuni's lifetime. In other words, he took over as the leader of Rahula's students. Rahula's practice is innate mind practice.... it is the practice of awareness and nobody knew much about that group because they are silent in nature. That is why the top disciples of Buddha are well known and their students are also known, but Rahula and his students are a bit seclusive.*
Anyway, my Master said that there are 50 arahats (Rahula's students) who have returned and (most) are residing in South East Asia. Many of my Master's students, including his current day successor who lives in Taiwan, was one of those.
*91. Other than this, we know very little about Rahula. He does not seem to have been prominent at being either a Dharma teacher or a trainer of other monks. It is likely that Rahula kept himself in the background so that he could not be accused of taking advantage of being the son of the Enlightened One. - http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/disciples13.htm
yah meh? i always read Arahats stay in their nirvana for eons...now not even 1 eon passed since the Buddha Shakyamuni's time, and u say got arahats who came back and are living in S.E Asia??
So according to u, u say that these arahats come back liberated, but on what level? got other source to back up your comment?
Originally posted by whylikethatah:yah meh? i always read Arahats stay in their nirvana for eons...now not even 1 eon passed since the Buddha Shakyamuni's time, and u say got arahats who came back and are living in S.E Asia??
So according to u, u say that these arahats come back liberated, but on what level? got other source to back up your comment?
hmm ... my understanding is that Nirvana is not a place, so how do arahats stay there for eons? Also, can a 'liberated' person return? If, arahats come back liberated, it means they were never liberated.
My understanding that if one is liberated, one does not come back in any form - arahat or cockroach.
This thingy stuff of arahats who came back to live in SE Asia must be a joke, esoteric spinning of some misguided delusional mystics.
Originally posted by whylikethatah:yah meh? i always read Arahats stay in their nirvana for eons...now not even 1 eon passed since the Buddha Shakyamuni's time, and u say got arahats who came back and are living in S.E Asia??
So according to u, u say that these arahats come back liberated, but on what level? got other source to back up your comment?
Not necessarily eons...
I don't know what level, sorry. Lankavatara Sutra often equate arhat with 6th bhumi.