Mahayana sutras origin discussion
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
Oh, I see you are looking more at the likely ‘fruits’ resulting from one’s intents and actions. What you stated as ‘it is his karma’, basically mean his fate. Things can only become so-called ‘fated’ due to one’s ignorance of the causes or when one refuse to take any action to correct what is coming our way. If it is considered as a Buddhist term, it is certainly a complete misused of the term.
Just furthering your point.
~ from http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm#2
There are some who criticise thus: "So, you Buddhists, too, administer capitalistic opium to the people, saying: "You are born poor in this life on account of your past evil karma. He is born rich on account of his good Karma. So, be satisfied with your humble lot; but do good to be rich in your next life. You are being oppressed now because of your past evil Karma. There is your destiny. Be humble and bear your sufferings patiently. Do good now. You can be certain of a better and happier life after death."
The Buddhist doctrine of Karma does not expound such ridiculous fatalistic views. Nor does it vindicate a postmortem justice. The All-Merciful Buddha, who had no ulterior selfish motives, did not teach this law of Karma to protect the rich and comfort the poor by promising illusory happiness in an after-life.
While we are born to a state created by ourselves, yet by our own self-directed efforts there is every possibility for us to create new, favourable environments even here and now. Not only individually, but also, collectively, we are at liberty to create fresh Karma that leads either towards our progress or downfall in this very life.
According to the Buddhist doctrine of Karma, one is not always compelled by an ‘iron necessity’, for Karma is neither fate, nor predestination imposed upon us by some mysterious unknown power to which we must helplessly submit ourselves. It is one’s own doing reacting on oneself, and so one has the possibility to divert the course of one’s Karma to some extent. How far one diverts it depends on oneself.
Is one bound to reap all that one has sown in just proportion?
The Buddha provides an answer:
"If anyone says that a man or woman must reap in this life according to his present deeds, in that case there is no religious life, nor is an opportunity afforded for the entire extinction of sorrow. But if anyone says that what a man or woman reaps in this and future lives accords with his or her deeds present and past, in that case there is a religious life, and an opportunity is afforded for the entire extinction of a sorrow." (Anguttara Nikaya)
Although it is stated in the Dhammapada that "not in the sky, nor in mid-ocean, or entering a mountain cave is found that place on earth where one may escape from (the consequences of) an evil deed", yet one is not bound to pay all the past arrears of one’s Karma. If such were the case emancipation would be impossibility. Eternal recurrence would be the unfortunate result.
-
so does followers of mahayana all strive for Buddhahood?
so even if one attain enlightenment, one has to seek rebirth to practise perfections?
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
so does followers of mahayana all strive for Buddhahood?
so even if one attain enlightenment, one has to seek rebirth to practise perfections?
It depends on your vows.
To your 2nd question, Dzogchen and Vajrayanist practitioners claim to be able to attain Buddhahood in one life instead of practising paramitas for great number of lives, but realistically speaking I haven't met anyone who has attained Buddhahood in one life (have heard of, but I'm not sure).
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
It depends on your vows.
To your 2nd question, Dzogchen and Vajrayanist practitioners claim to be able to attain Buddhahood in one life instead of practising paramitas for great number of lives, but realistically speaking I haven't met anyone who has attained Buddhahood in one life (have heard of, but I'm not sure).
how can that be? it goes against what the Buddha has taught. how can one practise all the perfections in one lifetime? is it pacceka Buddha or Samma sam Buddha?
whats why I say, are these people following what the Buddha has taught? who are they to say this? are they masters who have received pure vision? who are to verify what they said is real?
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
how can that be? it goes against what the Buddha has taught. how can one practise all the perfections in one lifetime? is it pacceka Buddha or Samma sam Buddha?
whats why I say, are these people following what the Buddha has taught? who are they to say this? are they masters who have received pure vision? who are to verify what they said is real?
My (Mahayana) Buddhist master says its not possible. Vajrayana masters however disagree.
Here's what Namdrol says:
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.Nobody can truly verify these things (unless you become very wise or enlightened yourself), in the same way that nobody can verify Buddha who lived 2500 years ago, or even verify pali canon, etc. This is religion that we are speaking of. You decide for yourself. Discern with your own wisdom.
I'm sure when you start practising, all these issues become side-issues. You will be able to see with much greater clarity what is true.
Also, when you start to experience the truth of what a tradition says, you will have much greater faith.
-
Why don't you just focus to realize the nature of your mind first. Life is too short to waste, just practice like your head is on fire.
-
sorry I do not follow the masters words. I only follow what the Buddha has taught. thats why I say, it is better to follow what the Buddha taught, you cant be wrong. if the masters teachings goes against what the Buddha has taught, then something is not right.
Nobody can truly verify these things (unless you become very wise or enlightened yourself), in the same way that nobody can verify Buddha who lived 2500 years ago, or even verify pali canon, etc.
you are wrong. when he first expounded the dhamma, there are people who are enlightened after he expounded the dhamma. thats the best verification the Buddha can get. as for pali canon, it was the preservation of the original words of the Buddha ie you dun amend, insert , omit or change any of the Buddha's teachings to suit your teachings or philosophy.
-
Then it depends on whether you believe in the validity of pure visions. In Mahayana, we do believe in pure visions, celestial Buddhas and bodhisattvas and so on. I can easily apply your same reason and say that many people were enlightened by Mahayana sutras. Authorship isn't such as issue to me as it is to you - wisdom is more important.
In any case, just keep an open mind and don't let doubt become an obstacle in your journey.
-
arent the sutras taught by the Buddha enough?
important thing is your practise ie letting go, meditation, disciplined lifestyle, 5 precepts if you are a lay follower. when people insulted or hit you and you dun feel any anger towards the person, then you have succeeded.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
arent the sutras taught by the Buddha enough?
important thing is your practise ie letting go, meditation, disciplined lifestyle, 5 precepts if you are a lay follower. when people insulted or hit you and you dun feel any anger towards the person, then you have succeeded.
Let's put "pure visions" aside first...I think we all know this...... If there is no Mahayana... will Buddhism flourished at other northern countries like China, Tibet etc...? Mahayana blended in the local cultures of a country to spread Dharma... I don't think it's something like twisted teachings from Buddhism... should be more on compassion and flexibility... Afterall Mahayana teachings does not deviate from 4 Noble Truths and Noble 8 fold Paths. It's just built on only.
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Let's put "pure visions" aside first...I think we all know this...... If there is no Mahayana... will Buddhism flourished at other northern countries like China, Tibet etc...? Mahayana blended in the local cultures of a country to spread Dharma... I don't think it's something like twisted teachings from Buddhism... should be more on compassion and flexibility... Afterall Mahayana teachings does not deviate from 4 Noble Truths and Noble 8 fold Paths. It's just built on only.
Hey 2009noviceThat is indeed so truth. In fact, in the Buddhist circle, we are well aware that Mahayana sutra came 500 years after Buddha nirvana. However, it does not reduce the essence of Mahayana spirit and its core teaching.
Intellectually, we tend to gear our to believe based on actual proof such as seeing. Sometime we are unable to verify things due to the constraint of time and space however we can depend on credible people, people experience and testimony. Example, we are unable to travel like astronaut to the moon. What make you think that the Apollo 17 spaceship landed on the moon in 1972? We can only believe based on the report, the photo and the verification of credible people like John F Kennedy. Does it make the Apollo 17 landing less real?
In the same manner, the Mahayana teaching was built on the 4 Noble Truths, Noble 8 fold Paths and 3 marks of existence shared by those great master when the layman is seeking the teaching. This teaching has travelled 3 land, India, China and Japan and expounded by great master. It is not based on one person experience but many unknown individuals. They experience the graces through practising the key principle. People can still experience it just like for yesterday, today and future. In fact, it was known to bring peace and order to the nation when practise on a societal level. Perhaps only by practising one then can verify its validity.
For Mahayana practitioner, it is a balancing act between intellectual and faith. In good faith, when we read the sutra, we are trying to model ourselves after certain Bodhisattva to make this world a better place. Yet when an intellectual ask if our role Bodhisattva is historically verifiable, we need to prepare to say no from academic point of view.
In the same manner, we known Germ and Bacteria exist but we can't see them through the naked eyes. Yet under microscope, they are real.These role model Bodhisattva although we are unable to see them, they were introduce by Buddha and the great master for a purpose. It does not make them less real. Perhaps, we can see them through practise then our mind will be clear to see them, just like the microscope. Then we will become one the unknown individual who can testify the good graces of Mahayana teaching.
Each of us has our affinity with a particular practise. If Pali Sutta will make one a better person, one should embrace it with a wholeheart. Same goes with the Mahayana Sutra.
At the end of the day, the essence will be as Robbie William has sung,
"I know I'm leavin' here a better man
For knowin' you this way
Things I couldn't do before, now I think I can
And I'm leavin here a better man"
-
also:
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Even if a monk, taking hold of my outer cloak, were to follow right behind me, placing his feet in my footsteps, yet if he were to be greedy for sensual pleasures, strong in his passions, malevolent in mind, corrupt in his resolves, his mindfulness muddled, unalert, uncentered, his mind scattered, & his faculties uncontrolled, then he would be far from me, and I from him. Why is that? Because he does not see the Dhamma. Not seeing the Dhamma, he does not see me.
"But even if a monk were to live one hundred leagues away, yet if he were to have no greed for sensual objects, were not strong in his passions, not malevolent in mind, uncorrupt in his resolves, his mindfulness established, alert, centered, his mind at singleness, & his faculties well-restrained, then he would be near to me, and I to him. Why is that? Because he sees the Dhamma. Seeing the Dhamma, he sees me."
Though following right behind,
full of desire, vexation:
see how far he is! —
the perturbed
from the unperturbed,
the bound
from the Unbound,
the greedy one
from the one with no greed.
But the wise person who, through
direct knowledge of Dhamma,
gnosis of Dhamma,
grows still & unperturbed
like a lake unruffled by wind:
see how close he is! —
the unperturbed to the unperturbed,
the Unbound to the Unbound,
the greedless one
to the one with no greed.
Itivuttaka's Sanghaá¹ikaṇṇa Sutta. Scroll down to Sutta 92
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.3.050-099.than.html
also:
"Those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught."
AN 3.72 - Ajivaka Sutta
/\