Paticcasamuppada – Is it about Rebirth or Mental Process?
-
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.
Arhants realize persons are empty, no atman. This is enough to attain arhant. But they treat dharmas to have svabhava or inherent existence. So they realize first emptiness but not second.
Secondly, from the Mahayana pov only when all sentient beings suffering are liberated is our job done. Our scope is therefore much larger.
-
Originally posted by lastime:
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.
Anatta can be taken to mean empty of persons - no soul or atman in or outside the five aggregates. So there is no subjective person (atman). But each of the aggregate can still be taken to have inherent, objective existence, as per Abhidhamma analysis. The latter is also rejected in Mahayana (as described in heart sutra). Of course, this is also rejected by Buddha even in Pali suttas as I have said before, but it is not realized or emphasized by the Arhants.
Both emptiness of person and emptiness of objects are not theory realisation, they are two levels of experiential realisations, as countless masters have showcased. If emptiness of objects were of mere theoretical value, Buddha would not have taught it.
I and Thusness have also shared our experiences about it:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html
-
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?
Realizing emptiness of dharmas doesn't mean you can't make distinctions on the conventional level.
Do you think the Buddha will say "oh since everything is empty, Christianity is the same as Buddhism"?
-
Lol Rooney u've been misunderstanding all this while. U're talking about 'dhamma' as in Truth, but they're talking about 'dharmas', something different.
-
Originally posted by whylikethatah:
Lol Rooney u've been misunderstanding all this while. U're talking about 'dhamma' as in Truth, but they're talking about 'dharmas', something different.
Dhammas and Dharmas both holds the same broad comprehensive meanings, just spell differently only. The first is in the Pali language and the second spelled in the Sanskrit language. It can mean the Buddha’s teachings, the laws of nature, the way things are. How it is to be understood depends on the phrasing of the sentence.
By the way, which are the above postings you think are been misunderstood?
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
Dhammas and Dharmas both holds the same broad comprehensive meanings, just spell differently only. The first is in the Pali language and the second spelled in the Sanskrit language. It can mean the Buddha’s teachings, the laws of nature, the way things are. How it is to be understood depends on the phrasing of the sentence.
By the way, which are the above postings you think are been misunderstood?
yes I have eyes to see that they are spelt differently thank you? i also know kamma(pali) and karma(sanskrit), both also "just spell differently only". the point u're making is exactly what i'm saying. all the while rooney seemed to be referring to dhamma as Truth, 'teachings', 'laws of nature', 'the way things are', versus 'dharmas' that u and AEN were telling him all this while. i'm not saying anything different from my last post, but just rephrasing so that it's easier to kao jai
-
Originally posted by whylikethatah:
yes I have eyes to see that they are spelt differently thank you? i also know kamma(pali) and karma(sanskrit), both also "just spell differently only". the point u're making is exactly what i'm saying. all the while rooney seemed to be referring to dhamma as Truth, 'teachings', 'laws of nature', 'the way things are', versus 'dharmas' that u and AEN were telling him all this while. i'm not saying anything different from my last post, but just rephrasing so that it's easier to kao jai
There are only two meanings of dharma, and this is universally accepted throughout Buddhism.
1) Teachings of Buddha
2) Phenomena
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
There are only two meanings of dharma, and this is universally accepted throughout Buddhism.
1) Teachings of Buddha
2) Phenomena
and that's what i'm saying for the 3rd time. Rooney was referring to the 1st one, whereas u and aik tc was referring to the 2nd one.
-
Originally posted by whylikethatah:
and that's what i'm saying for the 3rd time. Rooney was referring to the 1st one, whereas u and aik tc was referring to the 2nd one.
Actually both Dhamma and Dharma can be used in either ways.
It is just that one is Pali, the other is Sanskrit.
But I get what you mean...
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Arhants realize persons are empty, no atman. This is enough to attain arhant. But they treat dharmas to have svabhava or inherent existence. So they realize first emptiness but not second.
Secondly, from the Mahayana pov only when all sentient beings suffering are liberated is our job done. Our scope is therefore much larger.
Hi AEN...what about mindfulness of Dharmas...? Coz we all know there is no lasting entities in all Dharmas... that means the arhats also treat dharmas for the 2nd point too? But is this a common understanding throughout Thera or Maha...?
thx
-
Originally posted by 2009novice:
Hi AEN...what about mindfulness of Dharmas...? Coz we all know there is no lasting entities in all Dharmas... that means the arhats also treat dharmas for the 2nd point too? But is this a common understanding throughout Thera or Maha...?
thx
Theravada sees existence of dharmas which nevertheless arise and subside.
Mahayana sees dharmas are fundamentally illusory and empty, while they are impermanent they have fundamentally no birth and no death, i.e. "No production and no extinction; No permanence and no annihilation; No unity and no differentiation; No coming and no going."
-
So whats your idea on which is better/superior since you seems to be rather well informed in the texts?
-
Originally posted by lastime:
So whats your idea on which is better/superior since you seems to be rather well informed in the texts?
Methinks... better to think in terms of, which view accords with direct experience.
-
Originally posted by realization:
Methinks... better to think in terms of, which view accords with direct experience.
Or should I put it this way since realization further reinforce my statement how much of the teachings from both sides have both of you realise and understood to come out with such aboslute statement about "theravada" and "mahayana" emptiness? or do you just affirm them from their theoratical state?
-
Originally posted by lastime:
Or should I put it this way since realization further reinforce my statement how much of the teachings from both sides have both of you realise and understood to come out with such aboslute statement about "theravada" and "mahayana" emptiness? or do you just affirm them from their theoratical state?
Oh... what I meant was better not to ask which is 'better/superior', but instead to ascertain validity from the standpoint of direct experience.
Actually AEN already replied earlier that these are two reproducible, verifiable levels of insight. His reply from earlier was:
Anatta can be taken to mean empty of persons - no soul or atman in or outside the five aggregates. So there is no subjective person (atman). But each of the aggregate can still be taken to have inherent, objective existence, as per Abhidhamma analysis.
The latter is also rejected in Mahayana (as described in heart sutra). Of course, this is also rejected by Buddha even in Pali suttas as I have said before, but it is not realized or emphasized by the Arhants.
Both emptiness of person and emptiness of objects are not theory realisation, they are two levels of experiential realisations, as countless masters have showcased. If emptiness of objects were of mere theoretical value, Buddha would not have taught it.
I and Thusness have also shared our experiences about it:
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html
So actually both views accord with experience... just different stages of insight.One says, there are just dharmas, no atman.
Another further realises: no atman, and also no dharmas.
-
anyone can twist and turn with words or quote anything they like,but end of the day how much defilement one have it lies in the heart not in the books.I end my say here.
-
Originally posted by lastime:
anyone can twist and turn with words or quote anything they like,but end of the day how much defilement one have it lies in the heart not in the books.I end my say here.
yes but mahayana said arahants are selfish? lol
anyway I believed the Buddha purpose, no matter which tradition one is, is to lead as many people to salvation as possible, thru his dhamma.
-
Hahaha for all you know someone else said in another thread that arahant still have higher greed.
If the historical buddha is still alive they should kindly go explain to him that the suttas that recorded his teaching have alot of loopholes,his teachings that is patiently taught and memorise and recorded verbally from generation to generation cannot be compared to Ebooks and articles that people just copy and paste..most not even changing the font..lol
-
that is why I am more inclined towards theravda, not cos of any reasons or inclination, but cos I can trust their authenticity of the dhamma being transmitted by the Buddha. it is said that theravada is as close to the original words of the Buddha. how is it that during the Buddha's time, there were no theravada or mahayana, just dhamma. when the Buddha passed away, he also did not appoint a successor. his successor will be the next Maitreya Buddha. let the dhamma be your teacher and guide once I am not around, Buddha said this.
all those debates on the ideal path such as arhat or bodhisattva are philosophical differences. but buddhism is not meant to be like this. it is meant for one to practise the here and now and experience it thru meditation.
-
Originally posted by lastime:
Hahaha for all you know someone else said in another thread that arahant still have higher greed.
If the historical buddha is still alive they should kindly go explain to him that the suttas that recorded his teaching have alot of loopholes,his teachings that is patiently taught and memorise and recorded verbally from generation to generation cannot be compared to Ebooks and articles that people just copy and paste..most not even changing the font..lol
not higher, but habitual.
the quote is from my master chin kung, i hear it all the time, hence i was able to find from the net. so i need not type out.
/\
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
not higher, but habitual.
the quote is from my master chin kung, i hear it all the time, hence i was able to find from the net. so i need not type out.
/\
the problem is...people keep saying because their master said so, they come on forum and say it is true.
so i tell u my master so-and-so, and i come here and tell u all what my master say and then i tell u all its true. and then Rooney9 has also his master/teacher, and AEN also, and lastime also, and realization, and then the whole gang with their masters/teachers. So which one u gonna believe?
-
Originally posted by whylikethatah:
the problem is...people keep saying because their master said so, they come on forum and say it is true.
so i tell u my master so-and-so, and i come here and tell u all what my master say and then i tell u all its true. and then Rooney9 has also his master/teacher, and AEN also, and lastime also, and realization, and then the whole gang with their masters/teachers. So which one u gonna believe?
Applying with a mind of peace and loving, all masters speak the same language of passeth that we all share.
"Everything has its wonders, even darkness and silence, and I learn, whatever state I may be in, therein to be content.
Death is no more than passing from one room into another. But there's a difference for me, you know. Because in that other room I shall be able to see.
Unless we form the habit of going to the Bible in bright moments as well as in trouble, we cannot fully respond to its consolations because we lack equilibrium between light and darkness." -Helen KellerName: Helen Adams Keller
Birth: June 27, 1880
Death: June 1, 1968
Birthplace: Tuscumbia, Alabama
Star Sign: Cancer
-
Originally posted by whylikethatah:
the problem is...people keep saying because their master said so, they come on forum and say it is true.
so i tell u my master so-and-so, and i come here and tell u all what my master say and then i tell u all its true. and then Rooney9 has also his master/teacher, and AEN also, and lastime also, and realization, and then the whole gang with their masters/teachers. So which one u gonna believe?
My opinion is... Practice beats any talk in the sense that one should find out for oneself. Base one's path not on blind faith but preferably on faith supported by knowledge. Of course, a basic amount of faith is necessary or one will not be able to even believe the Buddha's words that enlightenment is possible and that practice leads to fruition.
The sutras, the commentaries, the Dharma talks, etc. that we listen to serve to provide the theoretical framework from which to base our practice. Without theoretical framework, practice also cannot begin. Even if you go to a very practice-oriented teacher, it won't happen that only the method is taught without basic premises being laid out.
Which we are going to believe is also very much based on personal inclinations and propensities. This is slightly off-topic, but my family member and I used to ponder why some people 'die, die' also cannot accept Buddhadharma and for that matter why some people subscribe to certain religions and not to others. The conclusion we came to is that we all have different affinities and propensities .... so back to which teacher one is going to believe. I think the way to ascertain is by returning to the sutras and seeing if what a particular teacher says is in accord with the sutras.
And yeah, I know that at this juncture, there may immediately be people wanting to point out their tradition to be the one and only correct one. My response to that is, don't be so quick to judge and jump to conclusions. Let those who have propensity to be purists be purists, and let those who agree with the second and third turning of the Dharma wheels also practice according to their traditions.
In anycase, it doesn't mean that one believes something now, that one cannot later redefine one's views at a later stage. I myself find that I am constantly refining, or should I say redefining, my views as time goes by. This redefinition could go in any direction really; some may even decide that Buddhadharma is not for them and leave for other pastures.
At the beginning of one's practice, one has more sheer faith and less direct knowledge, but as time goes by one's faith based on direct knowledge increases. I tell myself to just keep practicing such that we can one day speak with the certainty and conviction of personal experience and not just theory.
If I've spoken too much already, my apologies. /\
Namo Amituofo.
-
I only follow the dhamma taught by the Buddha. there are no theravada, mahayana or vajrayana in my mind.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
I only follow the dhamma taught by the Buddha. there are no theravada, mahayana or vajrayana in my mind.
Good....To me, one follow a specific tradition is simply trying to learn step by step.... if a person have the knowledge and ability to handle all tradition or no tradition is something to rejoice.. Good for you.. for me, "newbie" cant follow without tradition i get very confused.