Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Generally same as Theravada. But we do not think arahat has reached their final destination, we think that arhats eventually are roused from their nirodha samapatti (cessation of perception and feelings) by the Buddhas to continue their path towards Buddhahood.
//Mahayana does not think that Theravada arahat has reached their final destination.//
(and in conjunction with your reply of 16 Jul 11, 11:09PM)
1. What is their (Theravada arahats) final destination?
2. How many stages or grades or categories of 'liberated' are there? Is there a 'half-liberated' arahat?
3. What did the historic Buddha called his disciples who were liberated?
Originally posted by I No Stupid:hmm ... my understanding is that Nirvana is not a place, so how do arahats stay there for eons? Also, can a 'liberated' person return? If, arahats come back liberated, it means they were never liberated.
My understanding that if one is liberated, one does not come back in any form - arahat or cockroach.
This thingy stuff of arahats who came back to live in SE Asia must be a joke, esoteric spinning of some misguided delusional mystics.
exactly..that's why my question lor. then why did Buddha teach 2500 years ago for what? maybe easier for Buddha to tell them 'eh, go back and be a bodhisattva now' when they are arahats, rather than have told them 2500 yrs ago. Why can't just teach Mahayana vehicle(Bodhisattva way) 2500 yrs ago? The only reason pple are going to say is that people that time wouldn't be able to comprehend - indirectly saying they buay kan.
Originally posted by I No Stupid://Mahayana does not think that Theravada arahat has reached their final destination.//
(and in conjunction with your reply of 16 Jul 11, 11:09PM)
1. What is their (Theravada arahats) final destination?
2. How many stages or grades or categories of 'liberated' are there? Is there a 'half-liberated' arahat?
3. What did the historic Buddha called his disciples who were liberated?
1. Buddhahood.
2. Arahat is fully liberated from uncontrolled samsaric rebirths and emotional afflictions (e.g. craving, anger, fear). They are also liberated from the 'I' conceit (illusion of self).
3. Arahat.
Originally posted by Almond Cookies:I wont be slandering buddhism now as I am a free thinker.
Ask yourself, Who am I? That is all that is necessary. Don't need zen, koan, etc for now. Just Who am I?
Originally posted by whylikethatah:exactly..that's why my question lor. then why did Buddha teach 2500 years ago for what? maybe easier for Buddha to tell them 'eh, go back and be a bodhisattva now' when they are arahats, rather than have told them 2500 yrs ago. Why can't just teach Mahayana vehicle(Bodhisattva way) 2500 yrs ago? The only reason pple are going to say is that people that time wouldn't be able to comprehend - indirectly saying they buay kan.
The historic fact: 2500 yrs ago while the Buddha was still alive, there was no Mahayana and other 'yanas'. When Buddha passed away without naming a successor or leader, the disciples were left to their own designs. When these original disciples went their separate ways and to different regions or localities, the field was wide open to disenfranchisement of what the historic Buddha taught. Hence, the schisms within the original Buddha-sangha and subsequent formation of many sanghas, sectarianism arose and there were as many as 18 different schools!
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:1. Buddhahood.
2. Arahat is fully liberated from uncontrolled samsaric rebirths and emotional afflictions (e.g. craving, anger, fear). They are also liberated from the 'I' conceit (illusion of self).
3. Arahat.
If I read you correctly (correct me if I misunderstood):
1. The purpose of achieving Buddhahood is to be like the Buddha in all his qualities – is this correct? That means Arahats despite being liberated are not contended and want to return from Nirvana to live in SEAsia (sorry, not sure if this is what you said). Isn’t Nirvana a one-way destination? And why would Arahats want to achieve Buddhahood? Is this a goal of Buddhism?
2. If Arahats are ‘fully’ liberated from some aspects you mentioned, are there areas they are not liberated?
Originally posted by I No Stupid:The historic fact: 2500 yrs ago while the Buddha was still alive, there was no Mahayana and other 'yanas'. When Buddha passed away without naming a successor or leader, the disciples were left to their own designs. When these original disciples went their separate ways and to different regions or localities, the field was wide open to disenfranchisement of what the historic Buddha taught. Hence, the schisms within the original Buddha-sangha and subsequent formation of many sanghas, sectarianism arose and there were as many as 18 different schools!
well, ok thats as to what happened in the history. but i was asking, why didn't Buddha teach people the Bodhisattva ideal? as opposed to the Noble 8-Fold Path which leads to the cessation of suffering etc - which is the Theravadin-Arahat ideal, which means once liberated, no more coming back. because if the Mahayana view that Arahats come back(after rousing by a Buddha), then it would have made more sense for the historical Buddha to teach the Mahayana vehicle.
Originally posted by whylikethatah:yah meh? i always read Arahats stay in their nirvana for eons...now not even 1 eon passed since the Buddha Shakyamuni's time, and u say got arahats who came back and are living in S.E Asia??
So according to u, u say that these arahats come back liberated, but on what level? got other source to back up your comment?
erm why would Arahats stay in their nirvana for eons? eons sound as if it's limited and as if nirvana is a place? "Liberated" why cannot return to samsara? as in Buddha was liberated from suffering and achieved nirvana at the age of 35, and was He not still alive in samsara? Buddha Parinirvana at the age of 80. then between 35 to 80, He's not liberated? then why say He's Fully Enlightened? in Sanskrit canon, and even in Pali canon, nirvana is not extinction.
http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/102.htm
Nibbana is not nothingness or extinction. Would the Buddha leave his family and kingdom and preach for 45 years, all for nothingness?
to me if they are Great Arahats, they are equal to Buddha level.
/\
Originally posted by whylikethatah:well, ok thats as to what happened in the history. but i was asking, why didn't Buddha teach people the Bodhisattva ideal? as opposed to the Noble 8-Fold Path which leads to the cessation of suffering etc - which is the Theravadin-Arahat ideal, which means once liberated, no more coming back. because if the Mahayana view that Arahats come back(after rousing by a Buddha), then it would have made more sense for the historical Buddha to teach the Mahayana vehicle.
to me, He did teach it to lay buddhists, who are more into Bodhisattva ideal. the ordained are more into arahat ideal. it's the lay buddhists or bodhisattvas that follow up the sanskrit canon.
but i think the pali canon also acknowledge that Buddha did teach the Bodhisattva ideal.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/jeffrey2.htm
http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/21.htm
also we have example of the jataka tales.
/\
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:http://uqconnect.net/slsoc/bsq/budchr0.htm
The Existence of the Universe
In their attempts to prove God’s existence, Christians will sometimes say “The universe didn’t just happen, someone must have made it and therefore there must be a creator God.” There is a major flaw in this argument. When it starts to rain ~e do not ask “Who is making it rain?” because we know that rain is caused not by someone but by something – natural phenomena like heat, evaporation, precipitation, etc. When we see smooth stones in a river, we do not ask “Who polished those stones?” because we know that the smooth surface of the stones was caused not by someone but by something – natural causes like the abrasive action of water and sand.
All of these things have a cause (or causes) but this need not be a being. It is the same with the universe – it was not brought into being by a God but by natural phenomena like nuclear fission, gravity, inertia, etc. However, even if we believe that a divine being is needed to explain how the universe came into existence, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? Perhaps it was created by the Hindu God, the God of Islam or one of the gods worshipped by tribal religions. After all most religions, not only Christianity, claim that their God or gods created the universe.
The Argument from Design
In response to the above refutation, the Christian will maintain that the universe does not merely exist but its existence shows perfect design. There is, a Christian might say, an order and balance which point to its having been designed by a higher intelligence, and that this higher intelligence is God. But as before, there are some problems with this argument.
Firstly, how does the Christian know that it was his God who is behind creation? Perhaps it was the gods of non-Christian religions who designed and created the universe.
Secondly, how does the Christian know that only one God designed everything? In fact, as the universe is so intricate and complex we could expect it to need the intelligence of several, perhaps dozens, of gods to design it. So if anything the argument from design proves that there are many gods, not one as Christians claim.
Next, we would have to ask, is the universe perfectly designed? We must ask this because if a perfect God designed and created the universe, then that universe should be perfect. Let us first look at inanimate phenomena to see whether they show perfect design. Rain gives us pure water to drink but sometimes it rains too much and people lose their lives, their homes and their means of livelihood in floods. At other times it doesn’t rain at all and millions die in drought and famine. Is this perfect design? The mountains give us joy as we see them reaching up into the sky. But landslides ~nd volcanic eruptions have for centuries caused havoc and death. Is this perfect design? The gentle breezes cool us but storms and tornadoes repeatedly cause death and destruction. Is this perfect design? These and other natural calamities prove that inanimate phenomena do not exhibit perfect design and therefore that they were not created by a perfect God.
Now let us look at animate phenomena to see whether they reveal perfect design. At a superficial glance, nature seems to be beautiful and harmonious; all creatures are provided for and each has its task to perform. However, as any biologist will confirm, nature is utterly ruthless. To live, each creature has to feed on other creatures and struggle to avoid being eaten by other creatures. In nature, there is no time for pity, love or mercy. If a loving God designed everything, why did such a cruel design result? The animal kingdom is not only imperfect in the ethical sense, it is also imperfect in that it often goes wrong. Every year ~lions of babies are born with physical or mental disabilities, or are stillborn or die soon after birth. Why would a perfect creator God design such terrible things?
So if there is design in the universe, much of it is faulty and cruel. This would seem to indicate that the universe was not created by a perfect all-loving God.
I used to hear "Praise God" whenever they see something beautiful. I wonder what do they say when earthquakes or tsunami strike.
Originally posted by sinweiy:
erm why would Arahats stay in their nirvana for eons? eons sound as if it's limited and as if nirvana is a place? "Liberated" why cannot return to samsara? as in Buddha was liberated from suffering and achieved nirvana at the age of 35, and was He not still alive in samsara? Buddha Parinirvana at the age of 80. then between 35 to 80, He's not liberated? then why say He's Fully Enlightened? in Sanskrit canon, and even in Pali canon, nirvana is not extinction.http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/102.htm
to me if they are Great Arahats, they are equal to Buddha level.
/\
Arahats stay in their nirvana for eons, i read that from books. U see, the whole point of Buddhism is liberation, so if Arahats are already liberated, imo, there should be no need to call them back. Might as well say, the whole point of practising Buddhism is to have arahats, they are already liberated and then Buddhas come and preach Dhamma to teach people to be liberated.
But when u say Buddha Shakyamuni, it's different. That was his job as a Buddha to show the way. He remained in samsara to teach people the way to liberation. But Arahats are already liberated, why is there a need for them to come back as bodhisattvas. If they were to remain in nirvana(which is the whole point of Buddhism), then isn't it better? Somemore, there are countless buddhas. As if these countless buddhas can't do the job of liberating more sentient beings? No offense to those countless buddhas.
Originally posted by whylikethatah:Arahats stay in their nirvana for eons, i read that from books. U see, the whole point of Buddhism is liberation, so if Arahats are already liberated, imo, there should be no need to call them back. Might as well say, the whole point of practising Buddhism is to have arahats, they are already liberated and then Buddhas come and preach Dhamma to teach people to be liberated.
But when u say Buddha Shakyamuni, it's different. That was his job as a Buddha to show the way. He remained in samsara to teach people the way to liberation. But Arahats are already liberated, why is there a need for them to come back as bodhisattvas. If they were to remain in nirvana(which is the whole point of Buddhism), then isn't it better? Somemore, there are countless buddhas. As if these countless buddhas can't do the job of liberating more sentient beings? No offense to those countless buddhas.
Mr Whyliketah , i was quite interested about what you mentioned about countless Buddha . The matter of fact is very simple .
Can tell me how many friends you have ,as in really close friends .10 ? 100 ? 1000 ?
you certainly cant reach more than 100 in your lifetime becos you will lost some of their contact information
Similarly Buddhas of Past Aeons also do not have close affinity to your friend except you yourself wad .So if countless Buddha dont know your close friend well , do you think they able to guide your close friend ? affinity is a results of cause and condition .Its already stated in the Buddha's time, that even some of his sangha still reborn in hell ,bcos there nothing the Buddha can do ,when karmic offense is that great .
Arhats doesnt have a skilful means to save sentient beings , they view it unnecessary to learnt .May i ask you if you are a Banker , would you listen to a beggar words of advice of salvation or someone who is your colleague ?
Anyway Arhat nirvana is NOT complete , according to Tientai school , they are in the Residual land which is much inferior than the Splendour of True Fruition of Amitabha Pureland .
"I used to hear "Praise God" whenever they see something beautiful. I wonder what do they say when earthquakes or tsunami strike."
Allahu Akbar. XD
Seriously, revelations has it that the world would be suffering before the coming of the saviour.
Originally posted by bohiruci:Mr Whyliketah , i was quite interested about what you mentioned about countless Buddha . The matter of fact is very simple .
Can tell me how many friends you have ,as in really close friends .10 ? 100 ? 1000 ?
you certainly cant reach more than 100 in your lifetime becos you will lost some of their contact information
Similarly Buddhas of Past Aeons also do not have close affinity to your friend except you yourself wad .So if countless Buddha dont know your close friend well , do you think they able to guide your close friend ? affinity is a results of cause and condition .Its already stated in the Buddha's time, that even some of his sangha still reborn in hell ,bcos there nothing the Buddha can do ,when karmic offense is that great .
Arhats doesnt have a skilful means to save sentient beings , they view it unnecessary to learnt .May i ask you if you are a Banker , would you listen to a beggar words of advice of salvation or someone who is your colleague ?
Anyway Arhat nirvana is NOT complete , according to Tientai school , they are in the Residual land which is much inferior than the Splendour of True Fruition of Amitabha Pureland .
some of his sangha reborn in hell? which sutra states that?
arhats don't have skilful means to lead others to liberation as compared to buddha? of course. but they are already liberated, why should they go back to samsara since there are countless buddhas? can say thats the duty of the buddhas since they are omniscient and all.
if you say Arhat nirvana is incomplete, thats just because you subscribe to the notion coming from your so-called Tientai school. But in the Pali Canon suttas(can't remember which), it's said that the Buddha said that once they attain liberation, to quote if i may, "theres nothing else to do." So in other words, u are refuting what Buddha Shakyamuni has said.
Originally posted by whylikethatah:well, ok thats as to what happened in the history. but i was asking, why didn't Buddha teach people the Bodhisattva ideal? as opposed to the Noble 8-Fold Path which leads to the cessation of suffering etc - which is the Theravadin-Arahat ideal, which means once liberated, no more coming back. because if the Mahayana view that Arahats come back(after rousing by a Buddha), then it would have made more sense for the historical Buddha to teach the Mahayana vehicle.
// then it would have made more sense for the historical Buddha to teach the Mahayana vehicle.//
The historical Buddha cannot teach Mahayana because during the life of Buddha, there were no 'yanas'. The Bodhisattva ideal came from Mahayana and so are other 'beliefs', one of which is that Buddha is god-like not human.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:// then it would have made more sense for the historical Buddha to teach the Mahayana vehicle.//
The historical Buddha cannot teach Mahayana because during the life of Buddha, there were no 'yanas'. The Bodhisattva ideal came from Mahayana and so are other 'beliefs', one of which is that Buddha is god-like not human.
no, not that the historical Buddha couldn't teach Mahayana. the 'Mahayana' vehicle is just a label or a name. what i'm saying is what was taught 2500 years ago by Buddha, was actually the Theravadin-Arahat ideal. That was the goal. The Buddha could have taught something else, to the effect to lead the people then on the Bodhisattva path, to get them to be bodhisattvas and not lead them to become Arahats.
Nirvana is not a place after death. It is a state realised when suffering ceased - 3rd NT. Buddha in his life-time achieved Nirvana and when he died he enters parinirvana or final liberation. Siddartha Gotama refers to himself as Tath�gata which means he has transcended suffering. So, I think it is more appropriate to use Tath�gata than to use Buddha.
Note that one can only achieved absolute freedom from suffering while still alive, not dead. The dead achieve nothing.
While alive, the Tath�gata is part of samsara because he will come to experience death!
I am absolutely puzzled why Arahat returns from Nirvana and why Bodhisattva is needed. Didn’t the TathÄ�gata said at his parinirvana that only the dharma is all that is needed for liberation? And he urged his disciples to work hard on liberation. He surely didn't urge them to return from Nirvana or return to help ... whatever 'skill in means' mean!
Originally posted by whylikethatah:no, not that the historical Buddha couldn't teach Mahayana. the 'Mahayana' vehicle is just a label or a name. what i'm saying is what was taught 2500 years ago by Buddha, was actually the Theravadin-Arahat ideal. That was the goal. The Buddha could have taught something else, to the effect to lead the people then on the Bodhisattva path, to get them to be bodhisattvas and not lead them to become Arahats.
I am not sure if I understood you. The bodhisattva ideal is emphasized by Mahayana. You are saying that the historical Buddha should have taught people to achieve bodhisattva and not arahat?
All that the Buddha taught was suffering and end to suffering. Everthing else was made up by his disciples!
[deleted upon request]
dawnfirstlight: god damn it
i no stupid: they come back out of great compassion to pursue omniscience and perfect all virtues and qualities
i dont know about you, but i once contemplated about entering cessation but the idea of forsaking and leaving other beings to suffer makes me sad
Originally posted by Aneslayer:"I used to hear "Praise God" whenever they see something beautiful. I wonder what do they say when earthquakes or tsunami strike."
Allahu Akbar. XD
Seriously, revelations has it that the world would be suffering before the coming of the saviour.
The world had been suffering before the birth of Jesus Christ, was suffering during Jesus Christ era and is still suffering after the death of Jesus Christ. He had already came once but did not stop the sufferings of the world. His 2nd coming (if it is true) will not make any difference. Who are we still waiting for to stop our sufferings ? Listen to Buddha, only we ourselves can liberate ourselves from sufferings. Wait no more.
If you read up on history, you will realise the world has been suffering from earthquakes, tsunamis, flood, famine, drought and many other natural disasters for thousands of years, years before the birth of Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:dawnfirstlight: god damn it
i no stupid: they come back out of great compassion to pursue omniscience and perfect all virtues and qualities
i dont know about you, but i once contemplated about entering cessation but the idea of forsaking and leaving other beings to suffer makes me sad
//i dont know about you, but i once contemplated about entering cessation but the idea of forsaking and leaving other beings to suffer makes me sad//
I make a distinction between distributing the gift of the dharma and coming back as bodhisattva to 'save' the world. The former is what I think the Buddha said while the latter is an individual's idealistic aspiration.
I find this thread rather intriguing. Let’s get real and down-to-earth. What exactly did the Buddha taught in his life-time? What caused schisms within the original Buddha-sangha? The many schools or traditions were the result of not only dissatisfactions within the monastic but the desire to interpret Buddha’s teaching in their own perspective, idealism, aspirations, and adaptation to ethnicity, absorption of local customs, culture and beliefs. While there is one common chord, the Four Noble Truths, the various schools are as different as apple and orange, at least from the outer skin. Each must stake their own truth and superiority over the other, hence you find the expression ‘inferiority’ mentioned. There is no one vehicle; there is greater or lesser vehicle to take you to Nirvana, just like you can take a Mercedes limousine or a Hyundai taxi to the airport!
Going back to history, there were monks/nuns who were scholars, thinkers, analysts, charismatic leaders, teachers and writers. That they developed their own ideas, interpretations, analyses, approaches, inclinations and aspirations shouldn’t sound surprising and thus must inevitably separate in order to distinguish one from another. Some schools faded and disappeared for good while others gained acceptance, popularity, and support and grew to be where they are today.
My question: are you a thinking and informed Buddhist or stereotype of ethnic Theravada, multi-sect Mahayana, Tibet-Nepal-Mongolia Vajrayana, or Singapore Rojakyana?