Buddha kept silent about God

[Simple_Jack]

If they lead to ACTUAL Nibbana/Nirvana, awesome....If not, toss them into the trash.

 

The salient issue is: what IS "actual" Nibbana/Nirvana? Who defines it? Is it fixed or dynamic?

Mahayana teaches the relative and ultimate truths model. This sort of investigation is for the realization of the inseparability of samsara/nirvana (e.g. the Heart Sutra.) This is why Mahayana teaches a non-abiding nirvana and why the whole path of Mahayana is based off the commitment of vows; to re-enter cyclical existence to benefit sentient beings (accumulating merit, while progressing towards anuttarasamyaksambodhi.)

 

Dzogchen doesn't bother with the two-truths model. It simply teaches that the basis only displays as one way, while the experience of the basis differs only with either having vidya or avidya.

[Simple_Jack]

O.K.....what DO you consider Dzogchen to be?

ChNN, teaches that Dzogchen is an independent vehicle or set of teachings unto itself (which encompass all 9 vehicles.) Apparently, the Nyingma sect originally held to this, but due to the growing pressures of the influence of the Sarma schools: They started advocating a gradual approach, which culminated in receiving the Dzogchen teachings after going through training in the lower vehicles.

[stefos]

Buddha defined God as the Creator, just like most people do. And he denied there was a Creator.

 

No, Buddha never denied Brahman.....He did deny Brahma only.

 

The neuter term "Brahman" isn't found in the Pali nikayas.

 

Please state the facts and not fantasy.

 

Taking into account what the Buddha said in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta: "Therefore, Ānanda, dwell making yourselves your island (support), making yourselves, not anyone else, your refuge; making the Dhamma your island (support), the Dhamma your refuge, nothing else your refuge."

 

He may have originally wanted to leave behind a community that modeled itself off of democratic egalitarianism. In either case, he still left behind a community of monks, many of whom were realized arhats. If we take the account of the 1st council (that was held a year after Buddhas death,) as factual: Then we have 500 realized disciples, who came together in the 1st council, to lay down the tenets of what Shakyamuni Buddha taught for future generations.

You ASSUME that the Buddha's teachings yielded 500 realized disciples.

 

Arhats? Bodhisattas?...........How do you know even IF the whole & proper corpus of what Shakyamuni taught exists still?

 

Answer: You can't to all the above questions

 

Humility is needed here.

 

ChNN, teaches that Dzogchen is an independent vehicle or set of teachings unto itself (which encompass all 9 vehicles.) Apparently, the Nyingma sect originally held to this, but due to the growing pressures of the influence of the Sarma schools: They started advocating a gradual approach, which culminated in receiving the Dzogchen teachings after going through training in the lower vehicles.

 

That's exactly right! The Buddha didn't teach a gradual method, his later followers created a gradual method. BTW, neither does Advaita Vedanta.

 

Hmmmm???? I wonder if there is ANY similarity at all.

There is.

 

Read this book: The origins of buddhist meditation by Alexander Wynne

Come back and repost.

 

Stefos

[stefos]

Taking into account what the Buddha said in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta: "Therefore, Ānanda, dwell making yourselves your island (support), making yourselves, not anyone else, your refuge; making the Dhamma your island (support), the Dhamma your refuge, nothing else your refuge."

 

Right.

 

One needs to establish what Shakyamuni's "Dhamma" was.

Not Mahayana, Not Vajrayana, Not even Dzogchen! These are quite evident.

 

There exists a whole body of literature from scholars "not David Loy" who question the validity of

the Theravada Pali canon.

They say that a lot of hagiography, embellishments, Theravada bias, etc. came together to create the Pali canon.

I believe it.

 

Personally, I can't wait until the recent bark find of ancient texts by archeologists is deciphered and published.

 

People take one canon, Pali, and glorify it higher than the heavens, making it to be THE sole source par excellence.

 

To encapsulate, Take an example:

The Visuddhimagga.....Much of it was lifted from the Vimuttimagga......How many "Buddhists" even know this?

When you read the Vimuttimagga, it mentions kasinas, development of siddhis, mindfulness, bare awareness, etc.

This is much more in line with the Tibetan Vajrayana actually than any other current "Buddhist" sect.

 

Let facts speak for themselves.

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

Read this book: The origins of buddhist meditation by Alexander Wynne

Come back and repost.

 

Stefos

 

This book is at odds with most scholars. Read the works of Bronkhorst.

 

Buddhist meditation and Upanishads are both from Shramana.

 

This review of your book is insightful.

 

http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol5/the-origin-of-buddhist-meditation.pdf

Edited February 13, 2013 by alwayson

[stefos]

This book is at odds with most scholars. Read the works of Bronkhorst.

 

Buddhist meditation and Upanishads are both from Shramana.

 

This review of your book is insightful.

 

http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com/vol5/the-origin-of-buddhist-meditation.pdf

Wonderful!

 

The fact remains that the Pali canon is 400 years after the historical Shakyamuni Buddha.

 

The other fact remains that other ancient schools that no longer exist had their own "canons" too.

 

Whom to believe?

 

YOU tell me......Back it up with historical proof. That's all I ask.

Stefos

Edited February 13, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

The fact remains that the Pali canon is 400 years after the historical Shakyamuni Buddha.

 

 

Only the tantras of Vajrayana and Dzogchen are definitive anyway.

[Simple_Jack]

One needs to establish what Shakyamuni's "Dhamma" was.

Not Mahayana, Not Vajrayana, Not even Dzogchen! These are quite evident.

"Whoever sees Dependent Origination sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees Dependent Origination." [M.I.191]

 

 

To encapsulate, Take an example:

The Visuddhimagga.....Much of it was lifted from the Vimuttimagga......How many "Buddhists" even know this?

When you read the Vimuttimagga, it mentions kasinas, development of siddhis, mindfulness, bare awareness, etc.

I knew this. This isn't unknown. I'm sure there a good number of people who know that this came before the Visuddhimagga.

[stefos]

"Whoever sees Dependent Origination sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees Dependent Origination." [M.I.191]

 

 

I knew this. This isn't unknown. I'm sure there a good number of people who know that this came before the Visuddhimagga.

You, me and baby Buddhist makes 3! YAY....3 people know this!

 

Most people are unaware of this.....Given the nature of "Pop Buddhism" in the U.S. and weird cults like the "Friends of the Western Buddhist order" and "Pure Land."

 

Dependent Origination is true...absolutely, BUT....Nibbana IS posited positively, "supposedly by the Buddha in the Pali Texts."

The buck just doesn't stop at D.O.....no the goal is "The other shore" and D.O. is a part in understandng that integrally.

 

D.O. is just part of the Buddha's teaching, a part of "the finger pointing to the moon." (Yes, I know it's from the Ch'an school)

 

My point still stands.

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

The other fact remains that other ancient schools that no longer exist had their own "canons" too.

 

Whom to believe?

 

 

Nagarjuna and Candrakirti.

[Simple_Jack]

You, me and baby Buddhist makes 3! YAY....3 people know this!

 

Most people are unaware of this.....Given the nature of "Pop Buddhism" in the U.S. and weird cults like the "Friends of the Western Buddhist order" and "Pure Land."

I first heard of it from the book list off of Daniel Ingram's website, lol. http://integrateddaniel.info/book-list/:

 

The Path of Freedom (Vimuttimagga) by The Arahant Upatissa, translated from the Chinese by the Rev. N.R.M. Ehara, Soma Thera and Kheminda Thera. This is the first great Theravada encyclopedia of meditation. Visuddhimagga (above) was probably based on it. Lost in the original Pali, it is translated back from a surviving Chinese manuscript. Much more readable than the Visuddhamagga, still quite comprenensive but not as detailed. It is very highly recommended. I like this one a lot. If you want to see how far Western Theravada Buddhism has fallen from the glory of it roots, read this book and then read basically any book by a modern, Western, non-monastic teacher. The difference brings tears to my eyes. Also on BPS.

 

He's the author of "Mastering The Core Teachings of the Buddha: An Unusually Hardcore Dharma Book."

 

Amitibha's Sukhavati and other Pure Lands are a huge part of Tibetan Buddhism. All the different schools/sub-schools have their own version of a pure land practice. Are you familiar with phowa teachings?

 

Dependent Origination is true...absolutely, BUT....Nibbana IS posited positively, "supposedly by the Buddha in the Pali Texts."

The buck just doesn't stop at D.O.....no the goal is "The other shore" and D.O. is a part in understandng that integrally.

If you're able to accept D.O. on some level, than why invest so much energy in attempting to reconcile it with the Atman-Brahman of Advaita? I'm sure you realize that what you're positing goes against like 99.9999999999% of commentaries and authored books that are out today?

 

Mahayana (I'm using this as an umbrella term for all sects,) deals a lot with distinguishing the differences between the nirvana of Hinayana. For the most part, it distinguishes that Mahayana doesn't fall into the extremes of nirvana like Hinayana does; since both samsara and nirvana are unestablished in Mahayana, clinging to the cessation of the Hinayana arhats/pratyekabuddha's is said to be a major breakage of one's bodhisattva vows (this is the point which Mahayana always brings up, at least.)

Edited February 14, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[stefos]

Quote

The Path of Freedom (Vimuttimagga) by The Arahant Upatissa, translated from the Chinese by the Rev. N.R.M. Ehara, Soma Thera and Kheminda Thera. This is the first great Theravada encyclopedia of meditation. Visuddhimagga (above) was probably based on it. Lost in the original Pali, it is translated back from a surviving Chinese manuscript. Much more readable than the Visuddhamagga, still quite comprenensive but not as detailed. It is very highly recommended. I like this one a lot. If you want to see how far Western Theravada Buddhism has fallen from the glory of it roots, read this book and then read basically any book by a modern, Western, non-monastic teacher. The difference brings tears to my eyes. Also on BPS.

 

Amitibha's Sukhavati and other Pure Lands are a huge part of Tibetan Buddhism. All the different schools/sub-schools have their own version of a pure land practice. Are you familiar with phowa teachings?

 

If you're able to accept D.O. on some level, than why invest so much energy in attempting to reconcile it with the Atman-Brahman of Advaita? I'm sure you realize that what you're positing goes against like 99.9999999999% of commentaries and authored books that are out today?

I'll address each one by the numbers sir...

 

1. The vimuttimagga is NOTHING like what is being taught in the world today!

If this is an early Theravada teaching manual....and what manual it is.......What DID the Buddha really teach?

 

I'm not sure.

 

2. I am familiar with phowa. The point is Nibbana and not being reborn in a pure land. I'm not argueing about pure lands....I'm saying that Nibbana is not impingent upon me or you praying to Amitabha for salvation. This is a foreign soteriological teaching which has no early Buddhist "flavor" at all whatsoever.

 

3. The reason I vehemently go after what I do is because the earliest teachings of the Buddha are constantly & virtually only commonly known to be the Pali texts!

 

These are from a Thera slant/bent and have their propaganda latched to them.

 

What Shakyamuni Buddha said is important to me as all later schools say "We ALONE have the Dhamma" in effect.

 

People can't even agree about the Pali texts which are the most ancient complete texts that we have (not necessarily the most ancient available today.)

 

I am persuaded that the Buddha DID believe in God it wasn't recorded and it was twisted years after his death.

The history of early Buddhism is unstable at best and confusing with large portions of original texts lost.

 

That's why I persue it.

Stefos

Edited February 14, 2013 by stefos

[RongzomFan]

2. I am familiar with phowa. The point is Nibbana and not being reborn in a pure land.

 

Absolutely wrong. Mahayana has nothing to do with nibbana.

[RongzomFan]

I am persuaded that the Buddha DID believe in God it wasn't recorded and it was twisted years after his death.

 

Absolutely not.

[RongzomFan]

stefos, I believe Buddha taught about triangle UFO's.

 

Disprove that.

[stefos]

Absolutely wrong. Mahayana has nothing to do with nibbana.

No, absolutely RIGHT. Mahayana is a Buddhist sect that has nibbana in view as the goal.

 

Absolutely not.

 

Absolutely YESSSS.....

 

stefos, I believe Buddha taught about triangle UFO's.

 

Disprove that.

 

I make statements only revolving around the historicity & authenticity of the Pali texts to Shakyamuni's actual life & teachings, not aliens.

 

Stop philosophically trolling & post something useful or our conversation will end.

 

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

No, absolutely RIGHT. Mahayana is a Buddhist sect that has nibbana in view as the goal.

 

The goal of Mahayana is Buddhahood, not nibbana.

 

I mean this is so incredibly basic, that you have no credibility.

[林愛偉]

"Nirvana is not necessarily an after-death state. It is the certification to and attainment of a principle. It is a sanskrit word interpreted to mean, "neither produced, nor destroyed". Since it is "neither produced, nor destroyed", birth and death are ended.One reaches nirvana when one reaches the position of not being subject to birth and death.

 

It is not the Buddha's dying. When the Buddha dies, he enters nirvana; he enters and certifies to the principle of nirvana with its 4 virtues of : Permanence, Bliss, True Self, and Purity.

 

Nirvana is emphatically not death." --- Master Xuan Hua

 

The goal of Mahayana is Buddhahood, not nibbana.

 

I mean this is so incredibly basic, that you have no credibility.

 

 

All Buddhist cultivation has everything to do with what Buddhist cultivation entails. It doesn't matter if its in the human realm, Desire Heavens, Animal realms, Hell realms, Demon Heavens, or Brahman Heavens. It doesn't matter which "Pure Land" one chooses to be in or cultivates and arrives in.

 

Dharma is not discriminative, living being are, for they remain accepting a thief as their own son; Accepting the "mind which seizes upon conditions" to be the true mind.

 

Throughout this thread, I have seen less substance, and more erudition, let alone actual principle.

 

There was once a man who believed in studies more than actual practice and had no concentration strength whatsoever. He thought all of that was not necessary, and he could attain realization all through understanding the principles, but not having to actually apply them in practice for the development of concentration strength (samadhi). He almost lost his virtue, but wasa saved by the very thing he thought unnecessary.

 

Anyone know his name, along with the story and reason for that specific teaching?

 

*** Just an add-on: Its quite a read, ENJOY!

 

Quoted from Master Xuan Hua in his commentaries on the Amitabha Sutra, and Shurangama Sutra. This is on the 4 words and Ananda's 4 questions to the Buddha before he gone to Nirvana:

 

The four words Thus I have heard begin all Buddhist sutras. It is Thus; if it were not Thus it would not be correct. This is the doctrine, and Dharma which is Thus can be believed.

I have heard.

Ananda says that he himself personally heard this teaching. But, having given proof to the fruit of Arhatship, basically Ananda has no ego. How can he say, “I have heard?” This is the “self of noself.” Ananda says, “I have heard” in order to be comprehensible to ordinary people, who have a “self.”

Heard fills the accomplishment of the hearer. Why does one have faith? Because one has heard. If one hadn’t heard, how could one have faith?

Ananda’s Four Questions

The use of Thus I have heard comes from instructions given to Ananda by the Buddha just before the Buddha entered Nirvana:

One day Shakyamuni Buddha announced, “Tonight, in the middle of the night, I am going to enter Nirvana!” When Ananda heard this he was so distraught that he cried like a baby for its mother and called, “Buddha, Buddha, please don’t enter Nirvana! Please don’t cast us all aside!” He cried and pleaded until his brain got addled, probably because he thought that this was what he should be doing.

Just then a blind man came by, one unlike other blind men. His ordinary eyes were blind, but his Heavenly Eye was open. Because he was blind, he wasn’t burdened with a lot of false thinking, and his mind was very clear. “Venerable One,” he said, addressing Ananda, “Why are you crying?”

“The Buddha is about to enter Nirvana,” Ananda replied. “How can I hold back my tears?”

The eyeless elder replied, “How can you do your work if you cry? After the Buddha enters Nirvana, we will have to establish many things. There is work to be done and questions to be asked.”

“What questions?” said Ananda. “The Buddha is going to Nirvana. What is there left to do? What could be more important than the Buddha’s Nirvana?”

The blind man, whose name was Aniruddha, and who was foremost in the capacity of the Heavenly Eye, said, “There are four extremely important matters which must be settled.”

“What are they?” asked Ananda.

“Compiling the sutras is one,” he said. “With what words should we begin each sutra?”

“True!” said Ananda. “That is important. It’s a good thing you brought it up. I never would have thought of it myself. All I can think of is the Buddha going to Nirvana. What is the second question I should ask?”

The Venerable Aniruddha said, “We have taken the Buddha as our teacher, but when he goes to Nirvana, who will be our teacher? Should we look for another teacher?”

“Right, right!” said Ananda. “We should find another good teacher. You’re quite right. What is the third?”

Aniruddha said, “Now we live with the Buddha, but when he goes to Nirvana, where will we live?” “That is very important,” said Ananda. “Without a place to live, how can we cultivate the Way? Should we find someplace else to live? These three matters are extremely important. What is the fourth?”

Aniruddha said, “The Buddha can discipline evil-natured Bhikshus, but after he goes to Nirvana, how shall we take care of them?”

Now, an evil-natured Bhikshu does nothing but disturb other people. If you meditate, he walks around, “Clomp! Clomp!” making a lot of noise so that no one can enter samadhi. When people are walking, he sits to meditate. “Look at me!” he says. “I sit much better than all of you,” and pretends to have entered samadhi. When people are bowing to the Buddha, the evil-natured Bhikshu likes to recite sutras, and when people are reciting sutras, he likes to bow to the Buddha. In general, he’s got to have a special style – “the evil-natured-Bhikshu style” – and he does not follow the rules. If everyone goes one way, he goes the opposite way. He has no consideration for anyone else, but expects everyone to notice him. “He’s terrific,” everyone says. “He really cultivates.” He insists on being special so that others will notice him and say that he is the best. Fiercely competitive, he must be the strongest, outstanding among the best. He stands like an asura with his hands on his hips as if to say, “See what a great hero I am?” He has to be different and outdo everyone else.

When the Buddha was in the world, he could control such evil natured Bhikshus, and they obeyed his instructions. But after he entered Nirvana who would supervise them? And who could control the evil-natured laymen who say, “Look at me. I’m more dedicated than all you other laymen.” Actually, it’s just because of him and his special style that no one else is dedicated. Aniruddha said, “When the Buddha goes to Nirvana, what are we going to do with the evil-natured Bhikshus and evil-natured laymen?”

“These are important questions,” said Ananda. “I’ll go ask right away.” He wiped his eyes, blew his nose, and ran off to the Buddha. “Buddha, Great Master,” he said, “I have four questions which I would like to ask you before you go to Nirvana. World Honored One, won’t you be compassionate and answer them?”

“All right,” said the Buddha.

“Buddha,” said Ananda, “you have spoken many sutras. When we compile and edit them, with what words should they begin?”

The Buddha said, “All sutras spoken by the Buddhas of the past, present, and future begin with the words, ‘Thus I have heard,’ which means, ‘The Dharma which is Thus can be believed. I personally heard it.’”

Ananda said, “Secondly, you are our Master, but when you enter Nirvana, who will be our teacher? Please instruct us. Should it be Mahakasyapa?”

The Buddha said, “No. When I go to Nirvana, take the Pratimoksa, the precepts, as your teacher. To accord with the Buddha’s instructions, those who leave home must first receive the precepts.”

Then Ananda said, “We have always lived with you, Buddha, but when you enter Nirvana, where are we going to live?”

Shakyamuni Buddha said, “When I go to Nirvana, all Bhikshus, Bhikshunis, Upasakas, and Upasikas should dwell in the Four Applications of Mindfulness: Mindfulness with regard to the body, feelings, thoughts, and dharmas.

• Contemplate the body as impure. If you know that the body is impure, you won’t love it, and without love there will be no attachment. Being without attachment is freedom. So first of all, regard the body as impure.
• Contemplate feelings as suffering. Feelings are all a kind of suffering, whether they are pleasant or unpleasant, for pleasant feelings are the cause of unpleasant feelings.
• Contemplate thought as impermanent. Thoughts shift and flow and are not permanent.
• Contemplate dharmas as devoid of self.”

Ananda further asked, “How should we treat evil-natured Bhikshus?”

The Buddha said, “That is no problem at all. Simply be silent and they will go away. Fight evil people with concentration power. Don’t be moved by them. If they are evil, don’t be evil in return. If a mad dog bites you and you bite him back, you’re just a dog yourself. Evil-natured people are born with a bad temper. All you can do is ignore them and they will soon lose interest and leave.”

“Oh,” said Ananda, “it’s really very simple.”

Why did the Buddha tell Ananda to use the four words “Thus I have heard?” These four words have three meanings:

• To distinguish Buddhist sutras from the writings of other religions. Non-Buddhist religions in India began their texts with the words “A” or “O” which means “non-existence” or “existence.” As these opposing religions see it, all dharmas in heaven and earth either exist or do not exist. “If it is not non-existent,” they say, “then it exists, and if it doesn’t exist, then it’s non-existent.” In general, as far as they can see, nothing goes beyond existence and non-existence. “In the beginning there wasn’t anything,” they write, “but now there is.” None of these religions speaks of true emptiness and wonderful existence. Their doctrines may resemble them somewhat, but they don’t explain them in detail.

Buddhist sutras are “Thus.” They are just that way. The Dharma is just that way. You ask, “What is not that way?” Everything is that way. If you question it and say, “What is that way?” then nothing is that way. “Thus” is extremely wonderful. The words “Thus I have heard” distinguish Buddhist sutras from the writings of other religions.

To resolve the doubts of the assembly. The Buddha knew that everyone would have doubts. After the Buddha’s Nirvana, while Ananda and Mahakasyapa were editing the sutras, Ananda sat on the Dharma-seat to speak the Dharma. Seeing him sitting on the Buddha’s seat, the members of the assembly suddenly gave rise to three doubts:

• Some thought, “Shakyamuni Buddha hasn’t completed the stillness! He hasn’t gone to Nirvana. Our Master lives!” They thought Ananda was Shakyamuni Buddha come back to life.
• Others thought, “Shakyamuni Buddha has already entered Nirvana. This must be a Buddha from another direction: north, east, south, or west.”
• “No,” said others, “the Great Master has gone to Nirvana. He hasn’t come back to life, and the Buddhas of the other directions teach people in other directions. They would never come all the way to the Saha world. Why, Ananda himself must have realized Buddhahood!”

The assembly held these three doubts until Ananda said, “Thus I have heard.” As soon as he said them, everyone knew that Shakyamuni Buddha hadn’t come back. They knew it was not a Buddha from another direction, and that Ananda had not become a Buddha. The Dharma which is “Thus” is that which Ananda personally heard from Shakyamuni Buddha. Three doubts suddenly arose and four words resolved them.

 

To end the assembly’s debates. Of all the great Bhikshus, Ananda was the youngest. He was born on the day Shakyamuni Buddha realized Buddhahood, and when the Buddha went to Nirvana, Ananda was only forty-nine years old. Why was Ananda selected to explain and edit the sutras? Old Kasyapa was the eldest, and Maudgalyayana and Shariputra were both of higher status than Ananda. There were many others in the assembly with more Way-virtue and learning than him.

 

He was the youngest and it was likely that no one would believe in him and that many would try to be first. One might say, “I’ve heard more sutras than you so I should explain them.” But when Ananda said, “Thus I have heard,” everyone knew that these were not Ananda’s principles, or the principles of the Great Assembly. “This is the Dharma which I, Ananda, personally heard the Buddha speak. It is not your teaching and not my teaching; it is our Master’s teaching. You are not first and I am not first.” This silenced the assembly’s debates.

Edited February 15, 2013 by 林愛偉

[stefos]

The goal of Mahayana is Buddhahood, not nibbana.

 

I mean this is so incredibly basic, that you have no credibility.

You are confused my friend....

Mahayana means "Great vehicle" in contradistinction to Hinayana....as many Tibetan works constantly point out,

with Nibbana as its end/goal.

 

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

You are confused my friend....

Mahayana means "Great vehicle" in contradistinction to Hinayana....as many Tibetan works constantly point out,

with Nibbana as its end/goal.

 

Stefos

 

 

You never heard of Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya?

 

You never heard of the 10 Bhumis?

 

You never heard of the Two Accumulations?

 

The goal of Mahayana is Buddhahood.

Edited February 16, 2013 by alwayson

[stefos]

You never heard of Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya?

 

You never heard of the 10 Bhumis?

 

You never heard of the Two Accumulations?

 

The goal of Mahayana is Buddhahood.

The goal of Dhamma is Nibbana, Mahayana says it's Dhamma/Dharma, get over it.

 

You are only an antagonist....I'm not here to become mean spirited and debate.

Apparently this is where this discussion with you is going.

 

Sorry but discussion with you is over.

Stefos

[RongzomFan]

You never heard of Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya?

 

You never heard of the 10 Bhumis?

 

You never heard of the Two Accumulations?

 

The goal of Mahayana is Buddhahood.

[konchog uma]

back to the topic of the thread....

 

I am very hesitant to voice this but as i am fairly sure of it, and don't care what people who argue for argument's sake have to say about it, i am going to

 

I thought that brahma approached him shortly after his enlightenment and supplicated him to teach his realization to people. I have heard from numerous sources that he felt that his insight was too difficult to convey or accept and was going to keep to himself for the rest of his life. Then he was approached by god who asked him to teach. This isn't silence about god, it is acknowledging the presence and even the authority (or at least the wisdom) of it.

 

can anyone comment (without starting a fight lol)? thanks

[Simple_Jack]

No, absolutely RIGHT. Mahayana is a Buddhist sect that has nibbana in view as the goal.

 

Absolutely YESSSS.....

Actually, alwayson is spot on when he says the goal of Mahayana is buddhahood and not nirvana. This is the gist of the differences in goals between Hinayana and Mahayana:

 

 

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=102&t=9619&start=140

 

deepbluehum wrote:What it boils down to is samsara vs. nirvana.

Malcolm: What is boils down to is going beyond both, since both are extremes.....Deepbluehum:That's that double talk. Nirvana is not an extreme. It is the middle between extremes. Samsara fluctuates between extremes...... Malcolm: Dear fellow, from a Mahāyāna POV, nirvana is an extreme..... deepbluehum: I know. It seems Mahayana's nonabiding nirvana is jivan-mukti repackaged. Besides, dzogchen goes to nirvana..... Malcolm: The attainment of nirvana may entail the end of suffering and delusion but not of ignorance. Hence, nirvana is still an extreme because it is a mere cessation..... deepbluehum: That's ridiculous. Nirvana is not possible unless there is the cessation of ignorance.....Malcolm: You need to study more....Even in the Pali canon Buddha makes it very clear that Arhats do not possess omniscience. Furthermore, Vasubandhu is extremely clear about this point. ...cloudburst wrote: also, is there an example of ignoreace that is not delusion?

Malcolm wrote: Yes, the non-afflictive ignorance possessed by Arhats and Pratyekabuddhas, etc.....Cloudburst: and a definition of extremes, if you will?

Malcolm: A one sided state..... In short, all samyaksaṃbuddhas are arhats, but not all arhats are saṃyaksaṃbuddhas.

 

Śravaka-bodhi is not the same thing as the bodhi of an bodhisattva or that of a buddha. Please see the Abhisamaya-alaṃkara.

 

From the Dzogchen side of things:

 

http://www.vajracakra.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=472&start=70

Malcolm:

The way the dzogchen tantras phrase things, "hindu" dharma traditions are merely distortions of the view, path and result taught by the buddhas. For example, the panca agni practice of some ascetics is held to stem from some yogi misapprehending their vision of the five nirmanakaya buddhafields, and so on. But Samantabhadra does says that all samsaric and nirvanic vehicles are his vehicles. So I tend to view dzogchen as the essence of all vehicles, either samsaric or nirvanic.....

deepbluehum: Seriously a mistake wouldn't lead to Buddhahood so what does that even mean?....Malcolm: It means that there is only one reality, and all paths are attempts to know that, whether they are mistaken i.e. samsaric, or incomplete i.e nirvanic. In a very real sense, even nirvanic paths are predicated on various errors. The difference is merely in degree of error, resulting in length of delay towards realization. But anyone who is on a meritorious path, whether it is a samsaric dharma or nirvanic dharma will eventually attain. There are 360 wrong views listed in the Rigpa Rangshar, and still Samantabhadra claims them all, as well the nine yanas, as his vehicles.

 

I hope you understand that Samantabhadra represents the realization of Dzogchen and is not a form of "Buddhist monism."

[Simple_Jack]

"Nirvana is not necessarily an after-death state. It is the certification to and attainment of a principle.....

I think that Zen master Dogen has some of the best ways of phrasing the above:

 

 

Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash is after and the firewood before. You should understand that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression of firewood, which fully includes before and after and is independent of before and after. Ash abides in the phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes before and after. Just as firewood does not become firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to birth after death.

This being so, it is an established way in buddha-dharma to deny that birth turns into death. Accordingly, birth is understood as no-birth. It is an unshakable teaching in the Buddha's discourse that death does not turn into birth. Accordingly, death is understood as no-death.

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring. ~ Genjokoan

 

You must realize that life-death is itself nirvana. We cannot talk about nirvana without life-death. ~ Bendowa

 

Death is not opposed to life, and life is not opposed to death. ~ Shinjingakudo

 

The expressing of all functions in life and the expressing of all functions in death - you should study and experience this saying. ~ Zenki

 

You should realize that life and death are the training ground of Buddhism and the tools of Buddhists. ~ Gyobutsuiigi

 

Although we have not yet left birth, we already see death. Although we have not yet left death, we already see life. ~ Shinjingakudo

 

Within death there is life; within life there is death. ~ Yuibutsuyobutsu

 

"Because a buddha is in birth and death, there is no birth and death."

It is also said, "Because a buddha is not in birth and death, a buddha is not deluded by birth and death."

These statements are the essence of the words of the two Zen masters Jiashan and Dingshan. You should certainly not neglect them, because they are the words of those who attained the way.

 

Those who want to be free from birth and death should understand the meaning of these words. If you search for a buddha outside birth and death, it will be like trying to go to the southern country of Yue with our spear heading towards the north, or like trying to see the Big Dipper while you are facing south; you will cause yourself to remain all the more in birth and death and lose the way of emancipation.

Just understand that birth-and-death is itself nirvana. There is nothing such as birth and death to be avoided; there is nothing such as nirvana to be sought. Only when you realize this are you free from birth and death.

 

It is a mistake to suppose that birth turns into death. Birth is a phase that is an entire period of itself, with its own past and future.

For this reason, in buddha-dharma birth is understood as no-birth.

Death is a phase that is an entire period of itself, with its own past

and future. For this reason, death is understood as no-death.

In birth there is nothing but birth and in death there is nothing but death. Accordinly, when birth comes, face and actualize birth, and when death comes, face and actualize death. Do not avoid them or desire them.

Birth and death as the experience of nirvana. ~ Shoji

What is constantly saintly is impermanent and what is constantly ordinary is impermanent. The view that those who are just ordinary people and not saintly ones, and thus must lack Buddha Nature, is a foolish opinion held by some folks who are small-minded; such a view constitutes a narrow perspective which their intellect has conjectured. For the small-minded, ‘Buddha’ is a body and ‘Nature’ is its functioning, which is the very reason why the Sixth Ancestor said, “What is impermanent is, of course, Buddha Nature.

What seems constant has simply not yet undergone change. ‘Not yet undergone change’ means that, even though we may shift our perspective to our subjective self or shift it to the objective, outer world, in both cases there are no signs of change to be found. In that sense, it is constant. As a consequence, grasses and trees, as well as thickets and forests, are impermanent and, accordingly, they are Buddha Nature. It is the same with the human body and mind, both of which are impermanent and, accordingly, they are Buddha Nature. The mountains and rivers in the various lands are impermanent, so, accordingly, they are Buddha Nature. Supreme, fully perfected enlightenment is Buddha Nature, and hence it is impermanent. The Buddha’s great entry into nirvana was impermanent, and hence it is Buddha Nature.

Shobogenzo, Bussho

Edited February 17, 2013 by Simple_Jack