Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight: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.
At another perspective, Buddhism exists longer than Christian and sufferings are abound. Those less suffered are called fortunate. Lucky to be well off suffering levels. I see logistics and medical advances and insurance policies probably helped lessen suffering more.
Originally posted by I No Stupid: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?
Seriously i sympathise you ..but never mind ,your words and action have been monitored by the devas and whatever moves you want to start to destroy mahayana , just be reminded you are only a human being , not a cultivated one .kthxbye
Originally posted by bohiruci:Seriously i sympathise you ..but never mind ,your words and action have been monitored by the devas and whatever moves you want to start to destroy mahayana , just be reminded you are only a human being , not a cultivated one .kthxbye
I don't need sympathy and I am curious why you said that. Perhaps, you like to explain? Also, may I ask if the devas have nothing better to do than to monitor a lizard?
There were many schools that came after the death of Buddha and they either died naturally or disappeared into thin air or destroyed by sympathy. If mahayana is destroyed whether by me or some others, I only have sympathy for you.
I have never stated or imagined I am not a human being ... so why the reminder? Can a human be cultivated? If so, where would karma and rebirth stand?
Have you answered the question I posed?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I no stupid, I understand the theravada stance and appreciate their views but agree to disagree. Bodhisattva path is nothing idealistic.
Bodhisattva ideal was mentioned. So, it isn't idealistic?
Whether Theravada or Mahayana, the Buddha certainly did not urge his disciples at his parinirvana to return to samsara or to upgrade themselves.
Svakkhato bhagavata dhammo,
sanditthiko,akaliko, ehipassko,
opanayiko, paccattam vertibabo,
vinnuhiti
Beautiful taught is the Lord's Dhamma,
immediately apparent, timeless, of the
nature of a personal invitation, progressive,
to be attained by the wise each for himself.
why was my post dated 18 July, 2011 at 6.49am, edited by sinweiy?
sinweiy deleted it without saying anything. a bit comical on how sinweiy moderates my post.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:What I meant is that the ideal is realistic.
Buddha did not discourage returning as bodhisattva but did not encourage either as the time has not come to teach mahayana in the pali sutta, so it does not contradict. Mahayana sutras are latter revealed teachings. Its complicated and I will not dwell on this but there is another thread about the origin of mahayana sutras which you can search.
//Buddha did not discourage returning as bodhisattva but did not encourage either as the time has not come to teach mahayana in the pali sutta//
This ‘neither here nor there’ answer is the most skilful mean I have come across. So, the historical Buddha needs a ‘second coming’ Buddha as the time to teach Mahayana.
//Mahayana sutras are latter revealed teachings//
This is a piece of very intriguing revelation. Didn’t know the historical Buddha had ‘hidden’ some of his teachings. Looks like there is Dharma II.
Originally posted by whylikethatah:why was my post dated 18 July, 2011 at 6.49am, edited by sinweiy?
sinweiy deleted it without saying anything. a bit comical on how sinweiy moderates my post.
You are right to ask for a reason. Unless your post was vulgar or you had not perfected your Speech or your caucasian English, you will suffer the ignominious cut.
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:I Not Stupid, a true Buddhist knows that the Buddha had hidden some of his teachings in the air, water, earth, fire element and guess who is the second Buddha to dig it out ?
Who is the true Buddhist?
And why must the historical Buddha play hide and seek?
And who is this 'second-coming' Buddha?
Originally posted by whylikethatah:why was my post dated 18 July, 2011 at 6.49am, edited by sinweiy?
sinweiy deleted it without saying anything. a bit comical on how sinweiy moderates my post.
paise, were pmed to delete All and Ban ppl, but i couldn't and didn't after deleted one, thinking i still need more observing. i have experienced even worst posters. i can also rebute, but guess no point, since the dispute has been around for almost all the while, without any party agreeing to either side. maybe this thread should close.
try this, a thorough researched article:-
from archive:-
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/dutt.htm
/\
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.
ok, i got bit time. :)
it depends, i see/illustrate this "liberation" as graduation and going out to society to earn a living. we can agree that Buddha's knowledge/wisdom is unlimited as compare to arahats, as with the handful of leaves simile. Buddha become Buddha due to his previous numerous Bodhisatta path. one can earn a living after graduation from college/high school, For example. one can "forever" carry on with this kind of living without changing anything until death, if one is not bored of the living, OR one can go for further study to become more knowledgeable, like Master, PHD etc. this is a common mind of upgrading oneself to become better until there's no more higher.
so the arahats can also exit nirvanic state (not place) and try to advance into the All knowing Buddhahood.
but there were also some arahat disciples of Buddha that had reached beyond Mahayana wisdom and i called them Great/Maha Arahats, i.e. graduated from Mahayana wisdom. they are liberated and no need any more learning. besides, learning itself is also a problem according to Mahayana wisdom.
they can stay even in samsara and still experience Nirvanic bliss. samsaric is transform into nirvanic. samsara is samsara, to delusional beings, but not to a liberated being. end of suffering is even higher when one can be non-suffering amid the "suffering" of samsara.
like stress in the modern society. one can go and relax in some remote place and have a peace of life. but when they return to work, they suffer stress again. those that can withstand stress and still be at peace is the one i salute the most rather than the escapists.
/\
Originally posted by sinweiy:
paise, were pmed to delete All and Banned ppl, but i couldn't and didn't after deleted one, thinking i still need more observing. i have experienced even worst posters. i can also rebute, but guess no point, since the dispute has been around for almost all the while, without any party agreeing to either side. maybe this thread should close.
try this, a thorough researched article:-
from archive:-
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-ENG/dutt.htm
The Place of the Aryasatyas and Pratitya Sam Utpada in Hinayana and Mahayana
BY Dr. Nalinaksha Dutt, Ph. D. (Cal.), D. Litt. (Lond.)
Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
vol 6:2, 1930.01, pp. 101-127
/\
Lol i wonder who was the 1 who 'requested' the deletion. IF i didn't like any of your posts, maybe i could request deletion and it'd get deleted too. The onus is on you as 1 of the moderators here, to deem fitting the request or not. As far as i'm concerned, the stuff i typed in that post was essentially the same as my previous posts made. It's no big deal and I'll let this slide. Unless of course more people were to come forward and request deletion of all my posts too
Originally posted by sinweiy:
ok, i got bit time. :)
it depends, i see/illustrate this "liberation" as graduation and going out to society to earn a living. we can agree that Buddha's knowledge/wisdom is unlimited as compare to arahats, as with the handful of leaves simile. Buddha become Buddha due to his previous numerous Bodhisatta path. one can earn a living after graduation from college/high school, For example. one can "forever" carry on with this kind of living without changing anything until death, if one is not bored of the living, OR one can go for further study to become more knowledgeable, like Master, PHD etc. this is a common mind of upgrading oneself to become better until there's no more higher.
so the arahats can also exit nirvanic state (not place) and try to advance into the All knowing Buddhahood.
but there were also some arahat disciples of Buddha that had reached beyond Mahayana wisdom and i called them Great/Maha Arahats, i.e. graduated from Mahayana wisdom. they are liberated and no need any more learning. besides, learning itself is also a problem according to Mahayana wisdom.
they can stay even in samsara and still experience Nirvanic bliss. samsaric is transform into nirvanic. samsara is samsara, to delusional beings, but not to a liberated being. end of suffering is even higher when one can be non-suffering amid the "suffering" of samsara.
like stress in the modern society. one can go and relax in some remote place and have a peace of life. but when they return to work, they suffer stress again. those that can withstand stress and still be at peace is the one i salute the most rather than the escapists.
/\
I see. So in a nutshell, what you're saying is that you're biased against Theravada, that's all.
Originally posted by whylikethatah:I see. So in a nutshell, what you're saying is that you're biased against Theravada, that's all.
i dun see any biase views against Theravada in Sinweiy's post here. maybe to qualify, i practice vipassana through Mahasi Sayadaw lineage, and appreciate the Bodhisattva Vows as a noble path.
with more practice, one can see the difference between Theravada and Mahayana and still be able to appreciate both teachings and reconcile the differences. do note that by reconciliation i do not mean merge, but to be able to see that both are indeed true and ideal paths for the practitioner.
None of the Buddha's teachings were pen by him, it's all by the 'downlines'.
pls take a seat first.
I see. So in a nutshell, what you're saying is that you're biased against Theravada, that's all.
nay, u misunderstood, to a person who know the idea of hina and mahayana, it's a wisdom, but to one who do not know, it's two different sect, a seperation. if u read my eariler post #2, i most of the time, fall into hinayana category too, but wish to practice like mahayana standard which is not easy. its like asking one to stay working and working in the stressful enviro without rest/peace. hinayana is also a foundation, without hinayana as first storey, there's no second storey of mahayana. that say to rest is to walk further. some like to learn until certain level as they cannot learn no more, some like to learn more before working. to say All must learn until that certain level is then bias.
note don't read hinayana to equal Theravada .
/\
Originally posted by geis:i dun see any biase views against Theravada in Sinweiy's post here. maybe to qualify, i practice vipassana through Mahasi Sayadaw lineage, and appreciate the Bodhisattva Vows as a noble path.
with more practice, one can see the difference between Theravada and Mahayana and still be able to appreciate both teachings and reconcile the differences. do note that by reconciliation i do not mean merge, but to be able to see that both are indeed true and ideal paths for the practitioner.
None of the Buddha's teachings were pen by him, it's all by the 'downlines'.
pls take a seat first.
u said 'difference between Theravada and Mahayana'? what are these differences?
Originally posted by sinweiy:nay, u misunderstood, to a person who know the idea of hina and mahayana, it's a wisdom, but to one who do not know, it's two different sect, a seperation. if u read my eariler post #2, i most of the time, fall into hinayana category too, but wish to practice like mahayana standard which is not easy. its like asking one to stay working and working in the stressful enviro without rest/peace. hinayana is also a foundation, without hinayana as first storey, there's no second storey of mahayana. that say to rest is to walk further. some like to learn until certain level as they cannot learn no more, some like to learn more before working. to say All must learn until that certain level is then bias.
note don't read hinayana to equal Theravada .
/\
I don't see what is the point u're making in this post. Pls be more specific if possible. What do you mean by 'practice like mahayana standard'. And starting from the earlier post you made about 'graduation' etc, too. That is so common in alot of buddhism forums right...Arahat=PSLE, Buddhahood=Ph.D. I also know. Sorry, i'm not convinced still.
"eariler" post as in this one.
BTW, i do not always equal Theravada to be hinayana. Both Mahayana and Theravada can also have "mahayanist" and "hinayanist". they are mentalities per se.
the mentality of the hinayana WITHIN the Mahayana school would want to "see" that one do not breach the precept with their Bodies. while the mahayana mentality would want to "see" that one do not breach the precept with their MIND, which is even more difficult per se.
as we all know the teaching of egolessness or selflessness of person (Skt. pudgalanairatmya).
but have you learned the egolesseness or selflessness of phenomena (Skt. dharma-nairatmya)? understanding, selflessness of phenomena, you accomplished selflessness of person. but understand selflessness of person might not accomplish selflessness of phenomena.
so base on my experience on Hua Yen Sutra/Buddha vehicle(一乘法), and seeing people's reactions, i had notice the difference between hinayana and mahayana not base on the apparent or what people had wrote or journalized, that said Theravada is Theravada/Arahathood and Mahayana is Mahayana/Bodhisattvahood. or Theravada is hinayana.
No. i think within Theravada, there's mahayana And hinayana. And within Mahayana, there's hinayana and mahayana. All in one, one in All. note i use cap for the 'm' and 'M'.
What differences?
hinayana cultivator - emphasis on the apparent meaning of what Buddha said; emphasis on sunyata of self; clear distinction between Buddhism from worldly dharma; prefer to meditate base on stillness of body; avoid polutions best as possible.
mahayana cultivator - emphasis more on the significant than apparent; emphasis on sunyata of self And Dharma itself; able to blend/use worldly dharma to convert into Buddhadharma; able to meditate amidst daily activities. ie after they had cultivated bodily stillness in the mountain, they re-enter 'polutions' of urban area to enhance their meditative stillness. such standard of stillness of the mind is more powerful.
so sometime i can fall into the hinayana category and sometimes in mahayana category. but look forward to practice like mahayana standard, while hinayana is my foundation.
imho,
/\
during Buddha's time, there were no Theravada or Mahayana, nor Vajrayana or Hinayana. these are labels.
So I believed Theravada's teachings are the closest original words of the historical Buddha.
Originally posted by whylikethatah:u said 'difference between Theravada and Mahayana'? what are these differences?
can say one set emphsis more on odained practice and one set emphsis more on lay or house holder practice. u see path of bodhisatta(pali spelling) stay and practice in house hold life for numberous lifes etc. without certain torelance/practical method, it's not easy life after life in samsara.
during Buddha's time, there were no Theravada or Mahayana, nor Vajrayana or Hinayana. these are labels.
yes no label. still the practice quality of body and mind is there.
Originally posted by sinweiy:
can say one set emphsis more on odained practice and one set emphsis more on lay or house holder practice. u see path of bodhisatta(pali spelling) stay and practice in house hold life for numberous lifes etc. without certain torelance, it's not easy life after life in samsara.
that question was aimed for geis, thank you. pls take a seat first.
no need, i take leave. :)