Originally posted by Aik TC:
I thought what he wrote was that it is like a chain, all link up, which he mean is a continuous flow of life, and should not be divided up into a three lifetime existences. In your opinion, what useful purposes can an interpretation of a three lifetime dependent origination serve for a practicing Buddhist by the way? After all, moral causation itself can be achieved by practicing the Noble Eightfold Path. Moreover, Arahanthood in theory can be achieved in one lifetime and the understanding and concern of Paticcasamuppada should be for the present lifetime itself for the cessation of suffering.
All models of dependent origination are valid in their own contexts.
If you deny three lifetime, rebirth, and karma, that is problematic and in disaccord with Dharma.
If you deny rebirth you also deny freedom from rebirth/next life.
In other words by accepting ignorance caused your present life, you also accept that the ending of ignorance therefore leads to the end of future births.
Originally posted by Rooney9:how can that be? I dunno why mahayana said that arhats do not realised it. when u realised the truth or attain enlightenment, dun the truth realised by Buddha the same as Arhats? The Buddha taught, even the dhamma I taught you, however good and excellent it is, you must detach from the dhamma.
No we do not consider Buddha's realisation as Arhat's realisation. Arhat's realisation (first emptiness) however is also important, second emptiness builds upon the first.
After all even in Pali Canon, it was hinted that arhats understand things but Buddhas understand things "to the very end" (while not elaborating what the differences are).
Just searched online and found an article.
http://bhikkhublog.blogspot.com/2007/06/three-lifetimes-or-one-moment.html
Picking up on a theme in several of the comments, I'd like to jump into
the very hot water of the perennial debate about dependent origination. I
like to say that when I was in Thailand, I saw only two topics that
would be sure to generate heated debate among the monks; the correct
interpretation of the dependent origination and the allowability of
cheese in the afternoon.
(Not wanting to get lost in the legalistic minutiae of vinaya, we'll leave the latter aside for now.)
The twelve-fold dependent origination is a cornerstone of the Buddhist teaching, essentially a detailed
elaboration of first and second noble truth, or in the scriptural
phrase, "an explanation of how this whole mass of suffering comes to
be."
The teaching itself is a subtle and difficult one, and as so
often, the original texts are quite terse and formulaic. These factors
have led to various attempts at detailed elaboration. Two of these have
gained prominence in the Theravada world.
The traditional model,
sometimes called the "three lifetime model," is the one established in
the orthodox tradition by Buddhaghosa in the 5th century A.D. (The
explanation of dependent origination on my web-site is
based on this model.) The term "three lifetimes" is a bit of a
misnomer, it should really be "many lifetimes." The model supposes that
some of the factors refer to events from previous lifetimes, some to
this lifetime, and others to future lifetimes. For example, the crucial
link sankhara -> vinnana (formations to consciousness) is interpreted
as past karmic formations causing rebirth-linking consciousness.
The
other popular model is sometimes called the "momentary" model. Although
some version of this interpretation was known to Buddhaghosa, as he
mentions it in passing, it has only come into prominence in recent
decades through the work of the great Thai teacher Ajahn Buddhadasa.
This model prefers to see the dependent origination as occurring in it's
full cycle in every single moment of consciousness. Thus, the links of
birth and death are interpreted metaphorically, rather than literally.
(Here is a site dealing with Buddhadasa's interpretation.)
Without
coming to any definite conclusion (although in the interests of full
disclosure I'll say that I lean toward the traditional model) I'll make
the following observations;
1. I don't think the two models are
mutually exclusive, despite what some partisans on both sides would have
us believe. The process of cause-and-effect detailed by the dependent
origination can, and probably do, occur on several time scales. We are
coming into birth every moment as we take new objects of consciousness
and run the gamut of feeling, craving and clinging. But we also go
through the processes of actual physical death followed by rebirth
periodically. The dependent origination serves as an explanation for
both inter-related processes.
2. While some of Ajahn Buddhadasa's
disciples have gone so far as to actually deny that there is any
rebirth in the traditional sense, this does not appear to have been the
Ajahn's view. I don't believe there is any place in his writings where
he categorically denied the reality of physical rebirth. He did say
something like "rebirth has nothing to do with Buddhism" but what he may
have meant is that Buddhism should be about attaining nibbana (and
thereby ending rebirth) rather than seeking a fortunate rebirth. This
may have had a lot to do with the milieu of Thai Buddhism at the time,
which in his view was neglecting the higher teachings.
I have
also heard that when he was asked point-blank about this, he would say
"What do the suttas say?" When the reply came back that the suttas
clearly teach the actuality of rebirth (as they indisputably do) he
would say, "Well, we musn't go against what the Buddha said." Make of
this what you will.
3. From my reading of Ajahn Buddhadasa's
writing (not comprehensive) it seems that the main reason he taught the
momentary view was it's utility for practice. It is no simple matter to
practice with factors spanning several lifetimes, but we can all watch
the mind go through it's changes in the here and now. There is a lot to
be said for this way of looking at it. In particular, watching the mind
go through the sequence contact to feeling to craving to clinging to
becoming is a very important aspect of developing insight.
4.
Finally, whatever the merit of the two models practically or
theoretically, it is quite clear which one is closer to the original
texts. Whenever the Buddha gave detailed descriptions of the twelve
factors, he always described birth and death in literal, not
metaphorical language. Birth is coming into existence in one of the six
realms, through one of the four modes of generation etc. and death is
the failing of the faculties, the destruction of the body, the passing
out of this realm of being etc.
------------
POSTSCRIPT on Rebirth;
A correspondent alerted me to another web-site dedicated to promulgating Buddhism without Rebirth.
Without getting into a detailed critique, it should be enough that this
character quotes "the Buddha" using Paul Carus' Buddhist Gospel as a
source. I've dealt with the dubious influence of this book before.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No we do not consider Buddha's realisation as Arhat's realisation. Arhat's realisation (first emptiness) however is also important, second emptiness builds upon the first.
After all even in Pali Canon, it was hinted that arhats understand things but Buddhas understand things "to the very end" (while not elaborating what the differences are).
example. you realise old age is a certainty isnt it. chinese, indians, caucasians, malay also realised this all the same. likewise, professors know this, cleaners also know this. does it mean the well educated professors realise this more than the cleaner's realisation?
second thing, this is mahayana's prejudice against the theravda, I dunno how that came about. same thing with theravada prejudice against the mahayana.
to me, the truth is the truth. when you have this distinction, then how are you going to practise what you are preaching, by saying all dhamma's are empty.
Originally posted by Rooney9:example. you realise old age is a certainty isnt it. chinese, indians, caucasians, malay also realised this all the same. likewise, professors know this, cleaners also know this. does it mean the well educated professors realise this more than the cleaner's realisation?
second thing, this is mahayana's prejudice against the theravda, I dunno how that came about. same thing with theravada prejudice against the mahayana.
to me, the truth is the truth. when you have this distinction, then how are you going to practise what you are preaching, by saying all dhamma's are empty.
1) There are different kinds of realisation. With regards to two emptiness: one is emptiness of person, one is emptiness of dharmas. They are about emptiness but the object of refutation is different.
2) This is about facts - the Buddha taught the emptiness of dharmas, yet the Arhants continue to posit the existence of dharmas (wrong) while rejecting a soul (correct). That is why Prajnaparamita Sutras need to be taught - the emptiness of self and dharmas.
3) There are different levels of insights. It is best to go step by step as I and Thusness had.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:2) This is about facts - the Buddha taught the emptiness of dharmas, yet the Arhants continue to posit the existence of dharmas (wrong) while rejecting a soul (correct). That is why Prajnaparamita Sutras need to be taught - the emptiness of self and dharmas.
1) is this not what was being taught by the Buddha, dhamma.
2) in that case, how can they even attain enlightenment and be arhat?
3) are you even sure this is in the pali canon? how knowledgeable are you in theravada tradition?
4) Prajnaparamita Sutras was not expounded by the Buddha, so it was not in the Pali canon. that said, I am not doubting the veracity of the truth though.
Originally posted by Rooney9:
1) is this not what was being taught by the Buddha, dhamma.2) in that case, how can they even attain enlightenment and be arhat?
3) are you even sure this is in the pali canon? how knowledgeable are you in theravada tradition?
4) Prajnaparamita Sutras was not expounded by the Buddha, so it was not in the Pali canon. that said, I am not doubting the veracity of the truth though.
1) Well it is. He never said there is only one kind of insight.
2) Because they realized the emptiness of persons/atman.
3) What are you asking is in the pali canon? Emptiness of dharmas, as I have said, can be traced to Phena Sutta and Kaccayanagotta Sutta of the Pali Canon.
4) I did not say Prajnaparamita Sutras are expounded by historical Buddha (despite legends that they were kept by nagas, etc). They were clearly authored down by unknown authors, and display an evolution over time. They are however undoubtedly the earliest of all Mahayana sutras.
Prajnaparamita Sutras are necessary because Arhats only realize emptiness of persons but not emptiness of dharmas. It arose in reaction to that to clarify the twofold emptiness.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:All models of dependent origination are valid in their own contexts.
If you deny three lifetime, rebirth, and karma, that is problematic and in disaccord with Dharma.
If you deny rebirth you also deny freedom from rebirth/next life.
In other words by accepting ignorance caused your present life, you also accept that the ending of ignorance therefore leads to the end of future births.
All models of dependent origination are valid in their own contexts.
My stand is still that the three lifetime interpretation does not serve much useful purposes, other than to remind us of the important of the effect of moral causation itself.
If you deny three lifetime, rebirth, and karma, that is problematic and in disaccord with Dharma.
I do not wholesale deny the doctrine of Rebirth and Kamma, far from it. It is recorded in such sutta as AN6:63 and elsewhere. It is denied only from the point of view of a one lifetime mental process of the Dependent Origination Doctrine only.
Originally posted by Aik TC:
All models of dependent origination are valid in their own contexts.
My stand is still that the three lifetime interpretation does not serve much useful purposes, other than to remind us of the important of the effect of moral causation itself.
If you deny three lifetime, rebirth, and karma, that is problematic and in disaccord with Dharma.
I do not wholesale deny the doctrine of Rebirth and Kamma, far from it. It is recorded in such sutta as AN6:63 and elsewhere. It is denied only from the point of view of a one lifetime mental process of the Dependent Origination Doctrine only.
Well maybe one life D.O. is 'more practical', but that does not deny that D.O. can span lfetimes, and does span lifetimes, and because of this ignorance ceased in this life means no more future lives, karma from past lives ripen in this life, and so on.
By the way karma is an important doctrine in Buddhism too so lets not downplay that.
The most practical thing about D.O. imo is to apply this view in our daily experience so that we do not see things as being controlled or experienced by an agent but rather as a causal process, whether at issues of rebirth to more mundane everyday life issues, and also so that we are able to realize emptiness.
To deny one model of D.O. is to apply arbitrary limitations to the ways D.O. can manifest. That is why I say all models of D.O. are valid in their own context and should not be seen as contradictory.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Well maybe one life D.O. is 'more practical', but that does not deny that D.O. can span lfetimes, and does span lifetimes, and because of this ignorance ceased in this life means no more future lives, karma from past lives ripen in this life, and so on.
By the way karma is an important doctrine in Buddhism too so lets not downplay that.
The most practical thing about D.O. imo is to apply this view in our daily experience so that we do not see things as being controlled or experienced by an agent, whether at issues of rebirth to more mundane everyday life issues, and also so that we are able to realize emptiness.
To deny one model of D.O. is to apply arbitrary limitations to the ways D.O. can manifest. That is why I say all models of D.O. are valid in their own context and should not be seen as contradictory.
Let’s move on from here and see if there are anymore fresh views from other fellow forummers.
.
Yo paá¹iccasamuppÄ�daṃ passati so dhammaṃ passati; yo dhammaṃ passati so paá¹iccasamuppÄ�daṃ passati.[17] "He who sees the law of dependent arising, sees the Dhamma; he who sees the Dhamma, sees the law of dependent arising."
This shows that the quintessence of the Dhamma is in fact the law of dependent arising itself. Now there are these six qualities of the Dhamma, summed up in the well know formula, which every Buddhist believes in. This Dhamma is well-preached, svÄ�kkhÄ�to. It can be seen here and now,sandiá¹á¹hiko, that is, one can see it by oneself here in this very world. It is timeless, akÄ�liko. It invites one to come and see, ehipassiko. It leads one on,opanayiko. It can be realized by the wise each one by himself, paccattaṃ veditabbo viññÅ«hi.
DO occurs moment to moment and explains how the process of becoming ("rebirths") occur. This process continue from "life to life" until the cycle is broken once and for all. DO occurs from moment to moment . It can be seen here and now and is timeless.
The Buddha was mainly interested in ending suffering and the emphasis is liberation from the cycle of "birth and death". All else is icing on the cake.
Originally posted by Pegembara:Yo paá¹iccasamuppÄ�daṃ passati so dhammaṃ passati; yo dhammaṃ passati so paá¹iccasamuppÄ�daṃ passati.[17] "He who sees the law of dependent arising, sees the Dhamma; he who sees the Dhamma, sees the law of dependent arising."
This shows that the quintessence of the Dhamma is in fact the law of dependent arising itself. Now there are these six qualities of the Dhamma, summed up in the well know formula, which every Buddhist believes in. This Dhamma is well-preached, svÄ�kkhÄ�to. It can be seen here and now,sandiá¹á¹hiko, that is, one can see it by oneself here in this very world. It is timeless, akÄ�liko. It invites one to come and see, ehipassiko. It leads one on,opanayiko. It can be realized by the wise each one by himself, paccattaṃ veditabbo viññÅ«hi.
DO occurs moment to moment and explains how the process of becoming ("rebirths") occur. This process continue from "life to life" until the cycle is broken once and for all. DO occurs from moment to moment . It can be seen here and now and is timeless.
The Buddha was mainly interested in ending suffering and the emphasis is liberation from the cycle of "birth and death". All else is icing on the cake.
yes agreed. Buddha's purpose is to expound dhamma to the gods and men so that they can end their suffering from samsara. well said.
but then mahayana said that even if they were to attain enlightenment, they would be aroused from Buddha to strive for Buddhahood. I very much doubted this.
I also remembered the Buddha said this. The dhamma, which is good and excellent, you also need to let go. I dunno why mahayana said arhats doesnt realise the emptiness of the dhamma. they too have to forsake the dhamma. otherwise they are not able to realise the truth.
As for emptiness teachings, it occurs in spades in the Pali canon.
Phena and Kaccayanagotta suttas has been mentioned.
Kalakarama Sutta Whatever is seen, heard, sensed or clung to, is esteemed as truth by other folk,Midst those who are entrenched in their own views being 'Such' I hold none as true or false.
Loka Sutta: The World Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
Madhupindika Sutta: The Ball of Honey
"Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.
"When there is no ear...
"When there is no nose...
"When there is no tongue...
"When there is no body...
Dharmapada 13.170 –
The World : See it as a bubble, see it as a mirage: one who regards the world this way the King of Death doesn't see.
Mogharaja's Question
View the world, Mogharaja,
as empty —
always mindful
to have removed any view
about self.
This way one is above & beyond death.
This is how one views the world
so as not to be seen
by Death's king.
Originally posted by Rooney9:I also remembered the Buddha said this. The dhamma, which is good and excellent, you also need to let go. I dunno why mahayana said arhats doesnt realise the emptiness of the dhamma. they too have to forsake the dhamma. otherwise they are not able to realise the truth.
Because you can look at the Abhidhamma (commentaries) written by Arhants and they only talk about emptiness of persons, but not the emptiness of dharmas - they posit existence of dharmas. It is all very clear. Emptiness of dharmas are seldom taught or understood outside Mahayana.
Originally posted by Pegembara:As for emptiness teachings, it occurs in spades in the Pali canon.
Phena and Kaccayanagotta suttas has been mentioned.
Kalakarama Sutta Whatever is seen, heard, sensed or clung to, is esteemed as truth by other folk,Midst those who are entrenched in their own views being 'Such' I hold none as true or false.
Loka Sutta: The World Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
Madhupindika Sutta: The Ball of Honey
"Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.
"When there is no ear...
"When there is no nose...
"When there is no tongue...
"When there is no body...
Dharmapada 13.170 –
The World : See it as a bubble, see it as a mirage: one who regards the world this way the King of Death doesn't see.
Mogharaja's Question
View the world, Mogharaja,
as empty —
always mindful
to have removed any view
about self.
This way one is above & beyond death.
This is how one views the world
so as not to be seen
by Death's king.
That is great, thanks for sharing :)
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Because you can look at the Abhidhamma (commentaries) written by Arhants and they only talk about emptiness of persons, but not the emptiness of dharmas - they posit existence of dharmas. It is all very clear. Emptiness of dharmas are seldom taught or understood outside Mahayana.
I think you do not understand my message.
I reckoned that in order to attain enlightenment, how can monks not detach from dhamma. if they are still attached to the dhamma, how are they able to attain enlightenment?
The Buddha has exhorted to his disciples to even let go of the dhamma, which is wonderful and excellence, from the beginning till the end.
Mahayana claimed that theravada doesnt realise the emptiness of dhamma, but they themselves also have distinction of theravada and mahayana. since all forms and dhamma are empty, why have distinction?
Originally posted by Rooney9:I think you do not understand my message.
I reckoned that in order to attain enlightenment, how can monks not detach from dhamma. if they are still attached to the dhamma, how are they able to attain enlightenment?
The Buddha has exhorted to his disciples to even let go of the dhamma, which is wonderful and excellence, from the beginning till the end.
Mahayana claimed that theravada doesnt realise the emptiness of dhamma, but they themselves also have distinction of theravada and mahayana. since all forms and dhamma are empty, why have distinction?
I hope I do get the meaning of your above post right.
The Tharavada traditions consider all individual dhammas to be real and existing. This would mean the teaching of impermanence is emphasized more than the teaching of emptiness itself. On the other hand the Mahayanist considered all dharmas to be unreal, interrelated and empty. Emptiness here is the predominate teaching.
It is stated in the Alagaddupama Sutta (MN22) that when Right View is grasped and cessation of suffering attained, all dhammas is to be let go just like a raft should be abandoned once its purpose of using to cross a river have being accomplished. So I believe in your opinion, whether individual dhammas are considered to be real or not should not make any difference as eventually all teachings are to be abandoned once cessation of suffering is attained.
But to a Mahayanist, the Doctrine of Emptiness is considered to be more 'advance' as it when a step further to points out not just the self but also all things themselves are empty of any characteristic. This means that the realization of Emptiness is even more complete and the attainment of arahanthood is of a lower order. Besides, the attainment of an arahant is basically an individual achievement. To a Mahayanist, this would mean there is still the notion ‘self’ in the person unlike the ideals of a Bodhisattvaship which is a saving of all sentient beings.
k, afaik, i wouldn't say pali didn't mentioned selflessness of dharma/dhamma. it's Sabbe dhammá anattá.
A discussion of nibbána and anattá might, perhaps, have been needless, were it not that, in spite of the Buddha's silence on the matter, the view that nibbána is anattá is often put forward. To justify this view, appeal is generally made to these three statement of the Buddha's, which occur in the Suttas in many places:
Sabbe sankhárá aniccá.
Sabbe sankhárá dukkhá.
Sabbe dhammá anattá.
(Anguttara III,134; Dhammapada 277-279; &c.)All formations are impermanent.
All formations are suffering.
All things are not-self.They are interpreted in this way. Sabbe sankhárá means everything that is sankhata, or formed; or, in other words, everything excluding the asankhata, the unformed, nibbána. Sabbe dhammá means both sankhata and asankhata; that is to say, everything, nibbána included. Nibbána is thus anattá.
http://nanavira.110mb.com/nibban2.htm
but i have to reread the following link to get wat exactly is the different again.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/dutt.htm
BY Dr. Nalinaksha Dutt, Ph. D.
/\
Have a look at this:
So any thoughts and beliefs you have are just conditions. But I'm not saying that you shouldn't believe in anything, I'm just pointing out a way to see things in perspective so you're not deluded by them. We won't grasp the experience of emptiness or the Unconditioned, the Deathless, as a personal attainment. Some of you have been grasping that one as a kind of personal attainment, haven't you? I know emptiness. I've realised emptiness' - patting yourselves on the back. That's not sabbe dhamma anatta - that's grasping the Unconditioned, making it into a condition. Me' and Mine'. When you start thinking of yourself as having realised emptiness, you can see that also as a condition of the mind.
Now sabbe dhamma anatta: all things are not-self, not a person, not a permanent soul, not a self of any sort. That's very important to contemplate also, because sabbe dhamma includes all things, the conditioned phenomena of the sensory world and the Unconditioned, the Deathless.
Notice that Buddhists make no claim for Deathlessness as being a self either! I have an immortal soul, or God is my true nature!' The Buddha avoided any statements of that nature at all. Any possible conceiving oneself as anything at all is an obstacle to enlightenment, because you attach to an idea again, to a concept of self as being part of something. Maybe you think there's a piece of you, a little soul, that joins the bigger one at death. That is a conception of the mind - isn't it? - that you can know. We're not saying it's untrue, or false, but we're just being the knowing, knowing what can be known. We don't feel compelled to grasp that as a belief, we see it as only something that comes out of the mind, a condition of the mind, so we let even that go.
Keep that formula all conditions are impermanent, all things are not-self' for reflection. And then in your life as you live it, whatever happens you can see sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe dhamma anatta. It keeps you from being deluded by miraculous phenomena that might happen to you, and it is a way of understanding other religious conventions.
Ajahn Sumedho
http://amaravati.org/abmtrial/documents/the_way_it_is/04tfk.html
Originally posted by Aik TC:
I hope I do get the meaning of your above post right.
The Tharavada traditions consider all individual dhammas to be real and existing. This would mean the teaching of impermanence is emphasized more than the teaching of emptiness itself. On the other hand the Mahayanist considered all dharmas to be unreal, interrelated and empty. Emptiness here is the predominate teaching.
It is stated in the Alagaddupama Sutta (MN22) that when Right View is grasped and cessation of suffering attained, all dhammas is to be let go just like a raft should be abandoned once its purpose of using to cross a river have being accomplished. So I believe in your opinion, whether individual dhammas are considered to be real or not should not make any difference as eventually all teachings are to be abandoned once cessation of suffering is attained.
But to a Mahayanist, the Doctrine of Emptiness is considered to be more 'advance' as it when a step further to points out not just the self but also all things themselves are empty of any characteristic. This means that the realization of Emptiness is even more complete and the attainment of arahanthood is of a lower order. Besides, the attainment of an arahant is basically an individual achievement. To a Mahayanist, this would mean there is still the notion ‘self’ in the person unlike the ideals of a Bodhisattvaship which is a saving of all sentient beings.
first of all, isnt the dhamma taught by the Buddha. during the Buddha era, there is no hinayana or theravada or mahayana. so a century or so later, schools or traditions aroses due to split of interpretation. to me, sorry I make no distinction between arahants or Buddha, theravada or mahayana or vajrayana. its a contradiction to say mahayana's ideal is higher when such distinction is being made very strongly.
second if there is a self notion, how to even be an arahant in the first place? so your question is wrong.
I always believed the Buddha's aim is to expound the dhamma and lead to as many people to cessation of suffering. as possible. anything more is a pointless exercise.
Originally posted by Aik TC:
I hope I do get the meaning of your above post right.
The Tharavada traditions consider all individual dhammas to be real and existing. This would mean the teaching of impermanence is emphasized more than the teaching of emptiness itself. On the other hand the Mahayanist considered all dharmas to be unreal, interrelated and empty. Emptiness here is the predominate teaching.
It is stated in the Alagaddupama Sutta (MN22) that when Right View is grasped and cessation of suffering attained, all dhammas is to be let go just like a raft should be abandoned once its purpose of using to cross a river have being accomplished. So I believe in your opinion, whether individual dhammas are considered to be real or not should not make any difference as eventually all teachings are to be abandoned once cessation of suffering is attained.
But to a Mahayanist, the Doctrine of Emptiness is considered to be more 'advance' as it when a step further to points out not just the self but also all things themselves are empty of any characteristic. This means that the realization of Emptiness is even more complete and the attainment of arahanthood is of a lower order. Besides, the attainment of an arahant is basically an individual achievement. To a Mahayanist, this would mean there is still the notion ‘self’ in the person unlike the ideals of a Bodhisattvaship which is a saving of all sentient beings.
another thing is where do you get this source from? I strongly disagree with the author, whom I believe is a mahayana inclined.
Originally posted by Rooney9:first of all, isnt the dhamma taught by the Buddha. during the Buddha era, there is no hinayana or theravada or mahayana. so a century or so later, schools or traditions aroses due to split of interpretation. to me, sorry I make no distinction between arahants or Buddha, theravada or mahayana or vajrayana. its a contradiction to say mahayana's ideal is higher when such distinction is being made very strongly.
second if there is a self notion, how to even be an arahant in the first place? so your question is wrong.
I always believed the Buddha's aim is to expound the dhamma and lead to as many people to cessation of suffering. as possible. anything more is a pointless exercise.
These are just point of views. It is up to individuals reading it to doubt or believe, agree or disagree on the points stated. As far as I am concerned, the points raised are just for academic interest only. So long as there is no conflict on the core and basic tenets between the different schools of thoughts, then just follow the practices and teachings of the school one is most comfortable with. That would be a good start already. The rest is up to the individual to decide for themselves which direction they intended to take.
yes but then a masters supposed to be enlightened. enlightened masters view all dhamma as empty, hence there should be no distinction made. I preter the era of the Buddha's time, when there is just practising of the dhamma, no traditions nor schools of hinayana or mahayana.
as for arahant, of course their knowledge and power of course is so much inferior to that of a Buddha, who spent aeons practising perfections before they are ready to be a Buddha. you dun have to be a genius to know this.
as for arousal of arahant to strive for Buddhahood, again there is a split of opinions. once you attained enlightenment, this will be your last life, cessation of sufferings. same also goes to Buddha who attained Nibbana already. so why is there arousal after Nibbana?
So..Aik and AEN,what do you think of 'sabbe dhamma anatta' ? does it come from a mahayana source? talking about being more advanced when one have realised all dhamma is anatta is there such thing as an indiviudal achievement? and last but not least, in the pranjapramitta sutta, where by there is a conversation between the bodhisatta and the arahant sariputta,are all of you so 101% certain that the bodhisatta was trying to preach to sariputta and not that he was trying to explain to sariputta what he have understood?
I think very simply from this thread there is indeed 2 level of emptiness; emptiness at the theory level and emptiness at the realisation level.I below to the first type thus i do see the need to improve myself more on the 2nd level and im sure many of you do know which level of emptiness you yourself are instead of playing with concepts.