Does Buddha predicted the split?
-
Did the Buddha forsaw or predict the formation of Mahayana and Theravada and later Vajrayana Schools?
-
Buddha didn't predicted there will any difference in doctrines after his death. Otherwise, he would have shut up and not teach the dharma.
-
Since the Buddha was omniscient with the ability to see the past and future, yes, he did foresee the development of Buddhism of different traditions to different lands. I am not sure if he has specifically explain the development in detail (that is not necessary and his purpose is not to prophecise but to teach the dharma), but he did predict things like Padmasambhava becoming the teacher of Tibetans, and I believe a few other predictions here and there... but I think nothing very important.Originally posted by marcteng:Did the Buddha forsaw or predict the formation of Mahayana and Theravada and later Vajrayana Schools? -
All the major authentic traditions never deviate from the Buddhadharma and the 3 Dharma Seals, so they are fine.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Buddha didn't predicted there will any difference in doctrines after his death. Otherwise, he would have shut up and not teach the dharma. -
do u have the link for the prediction of Padmasambhava being teacher of Tibet and other prophecies as well, thanksOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:Since the Buddha was omniscient with the ability to see the past and future, yes, he did foresee the development of Buddhism of different traditions to different lands. I am not sure if he has specifically explain the development in detail (that is not necessary and his purpose is not to prophecise but to teach the dharma), but he did predict things like Padmasambhava becoming the teacher of Tibetans, and I believe a few other predictions here and there... but I think nothing very important.
-
can you help post on the bio and some history and background of PadmasambhavaOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:Since the Buddha was omniscient with the ability to see the past and future, yes, he did foresee the development of Buddhism of different traditions to different lands. I am not sure if he has specifically explain the development in detail (that is not necessary and his purpose is not to prophecise but to teach the dharma), but he did predict things like Padmasambhava becoming the teacher of Tibetans, and I believe a few other predictions here and there... but I think nothing very important. -
Regarding Padmasambhava (Guru Rinpoche), Nineteen different sutras and tantras contain clear predictions of his coming and activities. One for example, the Buddha states "Fifteen years after my death, one will come with greater capacity than myself - one with the power to establish the teachings of Vajrayana in the world." Some Buddhists think that Guru Rinpoche might be a manifestation of a Buddha again in the human form (although not appearing in the full form of a Buddha, this one got to wait for the next Buddha, Maitreya), and he is dubbed the 'Second Buddha'.Originally posted by marcteng:can you help post on the bio and some history and background of Padmasambhava
The story of him can be found here: http://www.muktinath.org/buddhism/padmasambhava.pdf -
During the buddha time, the 10 chief disciples each has his own strength and uniqueness in practise.Originally posted by marcteng:Did the Buddha forsaw or predict the formation of Mahayana and Theravada and later Vajrayana Schools?
Is it considered split? -
As I said earlier, Buddha as a human being should have shut up.
If Buddhist Dharma is meant to be the teachings of Buddha and his diciples, then its existence would never be denied by Nâgârjuna.
"Auspicious is the pacification of phenomenal metastasis, the pacification of all apprehending;
There is no dharma whatsoever taught by the Buddha to whomever, whenever, wherever. --Mûlamadhyamakakârikâ, nirvṇânaparîkṣâ, 25:22-24" -
Please, you have completely misunderstood what Nagarjuna said.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:As I said earlier, Buddha as a human being should have shut up.
If Buddhist Dharma is meant to be the teachings of Buddha and his diciples, then its existence would never be denied by Nâgârjuna.
"Auspicious is the pacification of phenomenal metastasis, the pacification of all apprehending;
There is no dharma whatsoever taught by the Buddha to whomever, whenever, wherever. --Mûlamadhyamakakârikâ, nirvṇânaparîkṣâ, 25:22-24"
As I posted in this forum a week ago:Words are fine, as we long as know that it merely serves as a pointer to the moon, it is not the moon itself. Also the Truth, the "Meaning" of dharma is not in thinking as well. It is through insights and realisation of our true nature that we can know.
When Transcendental Intelligence is considered, four things must be kept in mind: words, meanings, teachings and Noble Wisdom (Arya-Prajna). Words are employed to express meanings but they are dependent upon discriminations and memory as cause, and upon the employment of sounds or letters by which a mutual transference of meaning is possible. Words are only symbols and may or may not clearly and fully express the meaning intended and, moreover, words may be understood quite differently from what was intended by the speaker. Words are neither different nor not different from meaning and meaning stands in the same relation to words.
If meaning is different from words it could not be made manifest by means of words; but meaning is illumined by words as things are by a lamp. Words are just like a man carrying a lamp to look for his property, by which he can say: this is my property. Just so, by means of words and speech originating in discrimination, the Bodhisattva can enter into the meaning of the teachings of the Tathágatas and through the meaning he can enter the exalted state of self-realization of Noble Wisdom, which, in itself, is free from word discrimination. But if a man becomes attached to the literal meaning of words and holds fast to the illusion that words and meaning are in agreement, especially in such things as Nirvana which is un-born and un-dying, or as to distinctions of the Vehicles, the five Dharmas, the three self-natures, then he will fail to understand the true meaning and will become entangled in assertions and refutations. Just as varieties of objects are seen and discriminated in dreams and in visions, so ideas and statements are discriminated erroneously and error goes on multiplying.
The ignorant and simple-minded declare that meaning is not otherwise than words that as words are, so is meaning. They think that as meaning has no body of its own that it cannot be different from words and, therefore, declare meaning to be identical to words. In this they are ignorant of the nature of words, which are subject to birth and death, whereas meaning is not; words are dependent upon letters and meaning is not; meaning is apart from existence and non-existence, it has no substratum, it is un-born. The Tathágatas do not teach a Dharma that is dependent upon letters. Anyone who teaches a doctrine that is dependent upon letters and words is a mere prattler, because Truth is beyond letters and words and books.
This does not mean that letters and books never declare what is in conformity with meaning and truth, but it means that words and books are dependent upon discriminations, while meaning and truth are not; moreover, words and books are subject to the interpretation of individual minds, while meaning and truth are not. But if Truth were not expressed in words and books, the scriptures, which contain the meaning of Truth, would disappear, and when the scriptures disappear there will be no more disciples and masters and Bodhisattvas and Buddhas, and there will nothing to teach. But no one must become attached to the words of the scriptures because even the canonical texts sometimes deviate from their straightforward course owing to the imperfect functioning of sentient minds. Religious discourses are given by myself and other Tathágatas in response to the varying needs and faiths of all manner of being, in order to free them from dependence upon the thinking function of the mind-system, but they are not given to take the place of the self-realization of Noble Wisdom. When there is recognition that there is nothing in the world but what is seen of the mind itself, all dualistic discriminations will be discarded and the truth of image-less-ness will be understood, and will be seen to be in conformity with the meaning rather than with words and letters.
~ Lankavatara Sutra -
Still catching no ball from AEN.
-
What I mean't is that no dharma is taught means the words themselves are not the ultimate, but rather, what the words are pointing to.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Still catching no ball from AEN.
Doesn't mean the words are wrong. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
I just wonder whether you are aware that even speaking to fellow human beings the word "shut up" is usually considered rude. If this happens to religions which are less tolerant, you can imagine how people would respond to this. In discussions, there ought to be mutual respect, so please give yourself the respect by using more appropriate words.
[b]As I said earlier, Buddha as a human being should have shut up.If Buddhist Dharma is meant to be the teachings of Buddha and his diciples, then its existence would never be denied by Nâgârjuna.
You have brought up a very important point, which many people often get caught up in this confusion. The confusion is basically to do with the nature of language - language can never be completely precise in representing reality, because language itself is symbolic and never the real thing.
"Auspicious is the pacification of phenomenal metastasis, the pacification of all apprehending;
There is no dharma whatsoever taught by the Buddha to whomever, whenever, wherever. --Mûlamadhyamakakârikâ
What Nagarjuna taught and was further deliberated later by Chandrakirti in Madhyamakavatara is what is known as Prasangika Madhyamika. The position of Prasangika Madhyamika is that "the viewless view is the greatest view". The purpose of illustrating this point is to urge Dharma practitioners not to be attached to any view.
The main method used is deconstructing whatever we hold to be the truth, and ultimately reaching the conclusion that nothing is truly existing. However, this doesn't mean that nothing exists. Nothing truly exists - means nothing exists in essence, but everything appears as an illusion. The common analogy used is that of the mirage - it does appear, you can't deny that, but when you move closer to it, you can't find anything in essence. Therefore, we say that the mirage does exist, as an illusion. That is the state of all existence.
Therefore, in that respect, one can say that the Buddha taught no Dharma - because in essence even the Dharma does not truly exist. Even the Buddha himself said that, if anybody said that he taught the Dharma, that person would be telling lies.
However, in the relative truth, there is the appearance of the Buddha teaching the Dharma. Even historical records affirm that. Only that such appearance and teaching exist as an illusion.
The Buddha's teaching is about "Middle Way" which is also known as "Going beyond all extremes".
The "Middle Way" elaborated by Nagarjuna goes beyond the four extremes of
- Existence
- Non-existence
- Both existence & non-existence
- Neither existence nor non-existence
If you assert that Nagarjuna said "Dharma does not exist", you have missed the point. Likewise, if anybody said that the "Buddha does exist, that person has missed the point. So on and so forth.
In the Four Reliances, the Buddha advised:
- Rely on the message, not on the personality of the teacher.
- Rely on the meaning, not just the words.
- Rely on the real meaning, not just the provisional meaning.
- Rely on your wisdom and insight, not just on your ordinary, judgmental mind.
Therefore it is important for people studying the Dharma to clarify the difference between real meaning and provisional meaning of the words. If not, one would get very confused.
The study of Madhyamika is very deep and the meaning is very profound. It warrants even years of study. Therefore, please take note not to quote Nagarjuna or Chandrakirti out of context, but if one has the opportunity to study it in depth, I really rejoice from the depths of my heart.
-
Well said
-
Question when in doubt instead of deliberately ridicule and making rude remarks
-
Isn't no speech part of right speech?Originally posted by _wanderer_:You have brought up a very important point, which many people often get caught up in this confusion. The confusion is basically to do with the nature of language - language can never be completely precise in representing reality, because language itself is symbolic and never the real thing.
What Nagarjuna taught and was further deliberated later by Chandrakirti in Madhyamakavatara is what is known as Prasangika Madhyamika. The position of Prasangika Madhyamika is that "the viewless view is the greatest view". The purpose of illustrating this point is to urge Dharma practitioners not to be attached to any view.
The main method used is deconstructing whatever we hold to be the truth, and ultimately reaching the conclusion that nothing is truly existing. However, this doesn't mean that nothing exists. Nothing truly exists - means nothing exists in essence, but everything appears as an illusion. The common analogy used is that of the mirage - it does appear, you can't deny that, but when you move closer to it, you can't find anything in essence. Therefore, we say that the mirage does exist, as an illusion. That is the state of all existence.
Therefore, in that respect, one can say that the Buddha taught no Dharma - because in essence even the Dharma does not truly exist. Even the Buddha himself said that, if anybody said that he taught the Dharma, that person would be telling lies.
However, in the relative truth, there is the appearance of the Buddha teaching the Dharma. Even historical records affirm that. Only that such appearance and teaching exist as an illusion.
The Buddha's teaching is about "Middle Way" which is also known as "Going beyond all extremes".
The "Middle Way" elaborated by Nagarjuna goes beyond the four extremes of
- Existence
- Non-existence
- Both existence & non-existence
- Neither existence nor non-existence
If you assert that Nagarjuna said "Dharma does not exist", you have missed the point. Likewise, if anybody said that the "Buddha does exist, that person has missed the point. So on and so forth.
In the Four Reliances, the Buddha advised:
- Rely on the message, not on the personality of the teacher.
- Rely on the meaning, not just the words.
- Rely on the real meaning, not just the provisional meaning.
- Rely on your wisdom and insight, not just on your ordinary, judgmental mind.
Therefore it is important for people studying the Dharma to clarify the difference between real meaning and provisional meaning of the words. If not, one would get very confused.
The study of Madhyamika is very deep and the meaning is very profound. It warrants even years of study. Therefore, please take note not to quote Nagarjuna or Chandrakirti out of context, but if one has the opportunity to study it in depth, I really rejoice from the depths of my heart.
If Buddhist Dharma does exist, it is defined as the Chinese word "Fa". It would mean way or method. However as Buddha did define that the only constant that never changes is change itself, then there is no real message or meaning based on my wisdom and insight. -
Hmm I realized that I don't know what is the best way to respond that would be most beneficial to you.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Isn't no speech part of right speech?
If Buddhist Dharma does exist, it is defined as the Chinese word "Fa". It would mean way or method. However as Buddha did define that the only constant that never changes is change itself, then there is no real message or meaning based on my wisdom and insight.
I think I would just suggest that, when you wish to challenge the Dharma (or any other subject matter), at least ensure that you obtain a right understanding of the subject matter. This would help lead us towards a more meaningful exchange.
If you have a genuine interest to find out what the Dharma truly constitues, and what is the actual Buddhist understanding of "existence", then I would be glad to share more resources as well as proper training courses for you to attend. If not, it's hard for us to have a basis for discussion, since we're referring to different things/concepts.
I wished I were more skilful in discussing with you. All the best to you, and may we all become friends one day. -
Nicely said again.Originally posted by _wanderer_:There are people who do not adhere to Buddhism, but are worthy opponents to engage in debates with. When I attended courses on Madhyamika, we debated with foreigners, with senior students, with Hindus and non-believers, and even with the Dharma teacher. That kind of debate is useful, because people debate based on proper understanding, and with the intention to clarify doubts and misunderstandings. They don't care if they are Buddhists or not, but they want to discuss about what the truth truly is. However, unfortunately I don't see that sincerity in you, because I don't even see a proper representation of the Dharma in what you presented.