Moderators won't be able to take long leave.
//during Buddha's time, there were no Theravada or Mahayana, nor Vajrayana or Hinayana. these are labels.//
This statement is partly true. I am also aware of a certain inclination in this forum but I will speak my mind, nevertheless.
During Buddha’s lifetime, there was one sangha. After his death, schism occurred within the Buddha-sangha. His original disciples split, went to different regions and formed their own sanghas. After decades, roughly two major divisions emerged – northern and southern schools (just like martial art!). The difference lies in the ‘yana’ or vehicle to take one to Nirvana or Nibbana. The ‘major’ schools further split into sub-schools, culminating in more or less 18 sects, not all of which survived today. There are names to identify these sects, and it is simplistic to dismiss the various sects as mere labels. There are differences – large or small, for sure. As a matter of fact, new Buddhist sects were being surreptitiously formed the last couple of centuries!
Hinayana means ‘inferior vehicle’, a term used to describe pre-Mahayana school of Buddhism. Mahayana means ‘great way’, a school developed some 500 years after the death of Buddha.
Looking at Buddhist sects today, one can say that there are those which fall under pre-Mahayana (there was no original term Hinayana because Hinayana was coined by Mahayanists) such as Theravada, and those which fall under Mahayana such as Chan, Zen, etc. or variations of Buddhism as practiced in China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Taiwan. Mahayana reflects distinct influence of Hinduism and as it later adopted more Hindu concepts led to yet another movement – Vajrayana.
Vajrayana use esoteric text and mantras. It too spread to many countries but remained predominantly in Tibet, Bhutan and Mongolia.
Theravada originated from Sri Lanka (trace back to Rev Mahinda, a son of King Asoka), based on Pali Tipitaka which developed at the Mahavihara, a monastery in Anuradhapura, ancient capital of Sri Lanka. The Mahayanists considered Theravada as Hinayana.
It is necessary to know these backgrounds, the historical facts and developments so that you know where you are coming from when you ‘embrace’ a particular school, not just labels. Having said this, it is also necessary to know the differences between Hinayana and Mahayana in greater detail and there are many scholastic literatures.
For this thread in particular, Mahayana claims that their ideal practitioner, the bodhisattva, strives to liberate all beings. Mahayana considered the arahat is intent to liberate himself/herself only.
Originally posted by whylikethatah:that question was aimed for geis, thank you. pls take a seat first.
Theravada and Mahayana are different ideals that a practitioner can undertake. you want me to elaborate a question like this, i would like to know what kind of expectations do you have on my answer?
if i were to summarize in just one sentence it will be as follow:
one who is more inclined in Theravada may seek to work on one's own liberation through meditation on the fetters.
one who is more inclined in Mahayana may seek to work on liberation of all sentient beings while at the same time progress through realization of twofold emptiness, culminating in Buddhahood.
on a sidenote, while more of the posts in this forum are more inclined to Mahayana ideal. It doesn't mean that the posters do not agree with Theravada teachings.
The arguments on which is the Buddha's actual teachings fall apart in the face of an understanding of emptiness. The Dharma is just the Dharma, no point getting all worked up by the scenery.
of cos this is just my twenty cents worth haha, if its wrong pls correct.
Originally posted by geis:Theravada and Mahayana are different ideals that a practitioner can undertake. you want me to elaborate a question like this, i would like to know what kind of expectations do you have on my answer?
if i were to summarize in just one sentence it will be as follow:
one who is more inclined in Theravada may seek to work on one's own liberation through meditation on the fetters.
one who is more inclined in Mahayana may seek to work on liberation of all sentient beings while at the same time progress through realization of twofold emptiness, culminating in Buddhahood.
on a sidenote, while more of the posts in this forum are more inclined to Mahayana ideal. It doesn't mean that the posters do not agree with Theravada teachings.
The arguments on which is the Buddha's actual teachings fall apart in the face of an understanding of emptiness. The Dharma is just the Dharma, no point getting all worked up by the scenery.
of cos this is just my twenty cents worth haha, if its wrong pls correct.
//The arguments on which is the Buddha's actual teachings fall apart in the face of an understanding of emptiness. The Dharma is just the Dharma, no point getting all worked up by the scenery.//
Ordinarily, most faithful will just take what they are told. They will find it very perplexing to determine which are the Buddha’s actual teachings. Given the propensity for degeneration or enhancement over time, there is no denial that Buddha’s actual teachings may have been altered, not intentionally with ulterior motives but mostly for altruistic reasons!
It is too simplistic to state the Dharma is just the Dharma unless you are referring to the core teachings of the Buddha such as the 4NT. So long as the goal is the same, I see the different traditions as outer skins.
Indeed, there is no point in getting all worked up but one must truly know what the scenery is, not some silhouette.
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:I not Stupid
Guru Padmasambhva is the Second Buddha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padmasambhava
Pema Lingpa
My gut feelings tell me to stay away from tantric and esotericism. Sorry, to me, there is one Buddha and no other.
If there can be another Buddha, we can start cloning Buddhists. Don't get confused. Striving towards Buddhahood is different from some creature being reincarnated as some Buddha!
Originally posted by I No Stupid:My gut feelings tell me to stay away from tantric and esotericism. Sorry, to me, there is one Buddha and no other.
If there can be another Buddha, we can start cloning Buddhists. Don't get confused. Striving towards Buddhahood is different from some creature being reincarnated as some Buddha!
Yes, do stay away if you are uncomfortable. Difference strokes for different folks.
And yes, there is only one historical Buddha. The Buddhas and the Purelands are derive from our primordial awareness, our innate Buddha nature.
It is a form of skillful means from which I have benefited greatly. I have also benefited from the Theravada or Hinayana, which are just labesl for the convenience of reference. I do not think any less of them.
Coming from my traditional Chinese background, I am exposed to Mahayana as an organised religion,assimilated with Taoism, Confuscian and polytheistic folk beliefs, therefore easier accept and to get into. But were I born in a South or South East Asian country, things may turn out differently.
Taking the historical context, Mahayana school came about because there was a legitimate unease about the increasing quietism, self-absorption and over emphasis of monasticism within early Buddhism.
Like martial arts, different schools have different strokes. In this thread, I see that arahat and bodhisattva though ‘enlightened’ are not similar. It is like they are both karate black belt holders but of different ‘dan’. Mahayana views arahat as of a lower grade because an arahat is still short of certain quality. The arahat is ‘self’ centred while bodhisattva is ‘sentient’ centred.
Both arahat and bodhisattva desires to attain Buddhahood – to be like Buddha in all respect. In other words, Nirvana is not THE goal. It is like a kungfu student who wants to be equal to his master if not greater!
There can only be one Buddha who developed the Four Noble Truths. Another Buddha would have to develop another set of Truths. One kungfu master cannot have the same skill-set as another master. Each master must have his trademark kick or punch.
Strange as it may be, one who attains nirvana during his life and parinirvana upon his death, still want to return to samsara. Isn’t this rebirth? Or does it mean the bodhisattva resides in Nirvana and performs his salvation role ‘up’ there?
Either way, both arahat and bodhisattva are very much alive after parinirvana, striving to be another Buddha.
I am not sure if this is Buddha-divinity or the legend of Bruce Lee.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:Taking the historical context, Mahayana school came about because there was a legitimate unease about the increasing quietism, self-absorption and over emphasis of monasticism within early Buddhism.
Like martial arts, different schools have different strokes. In this thread, I see that arahat and bodhisattva though ‘enlightened’ are not similar. It is like they are both karate black belt holders but of different ‘dan’. Mahayana views arahat as of a lower grade because an arahat is still short of certain quality. The arahat is ‘self’ centred while bodhisattva is ‘sentient’ centred.
Both arahat and bodhisattva desires to attain Buddhahood – to be like Buddha in all respect. In other words, Nirvana is not THE goal. It is like a kungfu student who wants to be equal to his master if not greater!
There can only be one Buddha who developed the Four Noble Truths. Another Buddha would have to develop another set of Truths. One kungfu master cannot have the same skill-set as another master. Each master must have his trademark kick or punch.
Strange as it may be, one who attains nirvana during his life and parinirvana upon his death, still want to return to samsara. Isn’t this rebirth? Or does it mean the bodhisattva resides in Nirvana and performs his salvation role ‘up’ there?
Either way, both arahat and bodhisattva are very much alive after parinirvana, striving to be another Buddha.
I am not sure if this is Buddha-divinity or the legend of Bruce Lee.
Bodhisattvas abide in the nirvana of non-abiding, neither attaching to a state of nirodhasamapatti (cessation of perception and feeling) nor attached to samsara (ordinary, dualistic perception).
The Bodhisattva engages in the world but due to his wisdom of emptiness, abides in the nirvana of non-abiding and does not suffer - a Bodhisattva is liberated even in the midst of the world.
Also, the Bodhisattva manifests here not due to karma, but due to the power of his/her vows. Therefore it is not the same as ordinary birth of sentient beings - sentient beings are reborn due to their karma and are in the uncontrolled cycle of birth and death.
yes, very correct.
/\
and can also ask oneself, there's really no different between arahant and Buddha? how about the all knowing aspect of Buddha?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Bodhisattvas abide in the nirvana of non-abiding, neither attaching to a state of nirodhasamapatti (cessation of perception and feeling) nor attached to samsara (ordinary, dualistic perception).
The Bodhisattva engages in the world but due to his wisdom of emptiness, abides in the nirvana of non-abiding and does not suffer - a Bodhisattva is liberated even in the midst of the world.
Also, the Bodhisattva manifests here not due to karma, but due to the power of his/her vows. Therefore it is not the same as ordinary birth of sentient beings - sentient beings are reborn due to their karma and are in the uncontrolled cycle of birth and death.
hahaha, I have to intepret that that 'neither' here 'nor' there as emptiness. Since nirvana is not a place it is not possible to 'abide' or 'attach'.
To engage 'in the world' and yet abides in nirvana is exactly what I asked earlier " Or does it mean the bodhisattva resides in Nirvana and performs his salvation role ‘up’ there?"
I am more convinced now that it is the legend of Bruce Lee since bodhisattva has power derived from vows. And this power enables bodhisattva to engage in samsaric activities without being reborn.
Originally posted by I No Stupid:hahaha, I have to intepret that that 'neither' here 'nor' there as emptiness. Since nirvana is not a place it is not possible to 'abide' or 'attach'.
To engage 'in the world' and yet abides in nirvana is exactly what I asked earlier " Or does it mean the bodhisattva resides in Nirvana and performs his salvation role ‘up’ there?"
I am more convinced now that it is the legend of Bruce Lee since bodhisattva has power derived from vows. And this power enables bodhisattva to engage in samsaric activities without being reborn.
Bodhisattvas take birth out of compassion.
Also don't think that Nirvana is 'up there'....
David Loy: That sa�s�ra is nirv�ṇa is a major tenet of Mah�y�na philosophy. "Nothing of sa�s�ra is different from nirv�ṇa, nothing of nirv�ṇa is different from sa�s�ra. That which is the limit of nirv�ṇa is also the limit of sa�s�ra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So N�g�rjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirv�ṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Sa�s�ra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirv�ṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, M�dhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirv�ṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yog�c�ra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Bodhisattvas take birth out of compassion.
Also don't think that Nirvana is 'up there'....
David Loy: That sa�s�ra is nirv�ṇa is a major tenet of Mah�y�na philosophy. "Nothing of sa�s�ra is different from nirv�ṇa, nothing of nirv�ṇa is different from sa�s�ra. That which is the limit of nirv�ṇa is also the limit of sa�s�ra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So N�g�rjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirv�ṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Sa�s�ra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirv�ṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, M�dhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirv�ṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yog�c�ra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth.
In all honesty, I have to take my hat off for Mahayana. The 'skill in means' is the most unique skill I come across: 'neither here nor there', 'nothing here nothing there', 'not the slightest difference yet some difference'.
Did the Buddha taught "Nirvana is the world as it is itself ... "?
If Alexander the Great meets a Mahayanist, he will not just cut the knots, he will chop the bodhi tree!
Originally posted by I No Stupid:In all honesty, I have to take my hat off for Mahayana. The 'skill in means' is the most unique skill I come across: 'neither here nor there', 'nothing here nothing there', 'not the slightest difference yet some difference'.
Did the Buddha taught "Nirvana is the world as it is itself ... "?
If Alexander the Great meets a Mahayanist, he will not just cut the knots, he will chop the bodhi tree!
Nirvana is Samsara fully realized; Samsara is Nirvana rightly understood. If you understand the nature of samsara, that alone is nirvana. The cessation of ignorance and suffering is not another place. If you realize it, you are free here, if not, you are not free here.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Nirvana is Samsara fully realized; Samsara is Nirvana rightly understood. If you understand the nature of samsara, that alone is nirvana. The cessation of ignorance and suffering is not another place. If you realize it, you are free here, if not, you are not free here.
hmmm .... I like this double talk: nirvana is samsara, samsara is nirvana.
Better still: emptiness is empty, empty is emptiness!
//.... you are free here, if not, you are not free here.// haha! if I am free I am here (this forum), if I am not here, I am not free!
Originally posted by I No Stupid:hmmm .... I like this double talk: nirvana is samsara, samsara is nirvana.
Better still: emptiness is empty, empty is emptiness!
//.... you are free here, if not, you are not free here.// haha! if I am free I am here (this forum), if I am not here, I am not free!
Emptiness is form, form is emptiness.
if I am free I am here (this forum), if I am not here, I am not free!
Wrong. If you are free, then you are free right there and then, and not some other place. If you are not free, then wherever you go, you are simply not free. Nirvana is not some other place.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Emptiness is form, form is emptiness.
if I am free I am here (this forum), if I am not here, I am not free!
Wrong. If you are free, then you are free right there and then, and not some other place. If you are not free, then wherever you go, you are simply not free. Nirvana is not some other place.
hahaha, where is 'right there and then'?
And this is classic: "If you are not free, then wherever you go, you are simply not free." That means I am not free regardless of where I am! Indeed, I feel I am trapped (not free) in this double-take!
//Nirvana is not some other place.// Is is not a place, in the first place!
Originally posted by I No Stupid:hahaha, where is 'right there and then'?
And this is classic: "If you are not free, then wherever you go, you are simply not free." That means I am not free regardless of where I am! Indeed, I feel I am trapped (not free) in this double-take!
//Nirvana is not some other place.// Is is not a place, in the first place!
Precisely. Nirvana is not a place - it is the cessation of suffering and delusion. If you are free from suffering and delusion, then wherever you are, you are free, otherwise you are not.
"Right there and then" refers to "wherever you are".
Originally posted by Leogirldreamer:I Not Stupid, i am very comfortable with the Second Buddha Guru Padmasambhva teachings. So are the millions and thousands of Vajrayana disciples in the world.
We respect both Shakyamuni Buddha and the Second Buddha Guru Padmasambhva as the Buddha.
May be you should find the ” Million Name Buddha Sutra ” and studied the names of all the Buddhas from the past, present and future. Your mind will open and accept that there is more than one buddha.
I draw a line between historical fact and imaginations. Therefore, to me, there is only one Buddha. However, do not confuse this with ‘buddhahood’ which is the desire to attain the qualities of the Buddha.
I am aware that many people are comfortable with tantric, mysticism and esotericism. I am not.
only one Buddha
pali canon also have past Buddhas btw
I No Stupid said: I am aware that many people are comfortable with tantric, mysticism and esotericism. I am not.
What variety of Buddhism are you most comfortable with?
Originally posted by realization:I No Stupid said: I am aware that many people are comfortable with tantric, mysticism and esotericism. I am not.
What variety of Buddhism are you most comfortable with?
Sooner or later this question will arise. Thank you for asking. I am not comfortable with 'variety' because it means 'variants' (nice term) or 'deviants' (derogatory). Therefore, I am interested ONLY in Buddha's THOUGHTS and what he actually TAUGHT during his life-time, not his disciples (arahat or bodhisattva) and their various schools.
During Emperor æ¢�æ¦å¸�时代, there were several buddha existed simultaneously. A buddha known as “大耳和尚”was é”å…‰å�¤ä½›, the other is 永明延寿大师 who was Buddha Amitabha himself.
According Buddha Sakyamuni - Nirvana is Buddha while samsara is sentient beings, and there is no buddha or sentient beings truly existed in a bodhi mind.
Originally posted by Amitayus48:During Emperor æ¢�æ¦å¸�时代, there were several buddha existed simultaneously. A buddha known as “大耳和尚”was é”å…‰å�¤ä½›, the other is 永明延寿大师 who was Buddha Amitabha himself.
According Buddha Sakyamuni - Nirvana is Buddha while samsara is sentient beings, and there is no buddha or sentient beings truly existed in a bodhi mind.
//According Buddha Sakyamuni - Nirvana is Buddha while samsara is sentient beings, and there is no buddha or sentient beings truly existed in a bodhi mind.//
Where did you get this? Also, the many buddhas are just fairy tale legends.
Siddhartha Gautama was an ordinary human being. That he was a great thinker, fantastic teacher and a very wise person is NO DOUBT. As such, he has admirers and followers and people who pay him due respect and hold him in high regards. This is perfectly fine. However, to put him on a pedestal, elevate him to god-like status, revere him overtly and worship him ... is as good as idolatry.