Winnie's questions about Buddhism
-
I am unable to gauge whether or not he is an Arahant, or whether he's at Stage 3, 2 or 1, or anything at all. For the simple reason because I am not an Arahant nor beyond it.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I for one is convinced that for example, Dharma Dan is an arhat... for many reasons, other than being authenticated by incl. his teacher and others, the level of insight corresponding to the Buddhist stages up to Arhatship (see recently posted article http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram%27s%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/51EE7943-0A69-488A-B5B0-3C8F2EF7C5E8.html) as well as writing all about Nirodha Samapatti from personal experiences which means he will at least be an Anagami, and other forms of insights... however I would say it is up to discretion of readers, but before making any conclusions please read his entire book. But anyway we also shld't just read his book to make conclusions.. most impt is read his book for our practise and insights
I understand that there are many people who may have mistaken themselves to be liberated, but I am very convinced of some, like dharma dan's case... however I am not trying to force others into any views lah. Most importantly cannot dismiss him as a 'pseudo-buddhist' cults or whatever 
(i know you didnt mean dharma dan, just using an example) I think there is much to be learnt from him.
You can only be convinced that someone is an Arahant if you attain at least that level of attainment.
What I know for sure, though, is that in the Vinaya, the Buddha forbidded the monastics to "tell the truth about their spiritual attainment". that is why you don't see highly accomplished Theravadin monks going around telling people that they are Arahants. They may be authenticated by their teachers as Arahant, but they don't go round saying that. Their teachers tell the others that so-and-so is an Arahant, but them themselves don't say that. Not because these accomplished masters are bound by tradition and not open-minded. The Vinaya stated very clearly that they should not be telling others about their attainment. Also, there is no point in talking about their attainments at all, it distracts people from the path.
Why Dharma Dan or any other particular people actually publicly proclaim that they attained certain levels? I have no idea, and I don't think anybody could 100% know their motivations and intentions. So I don't see any point if you try to explain that he wants to help people or what... The point is, Buddha told students not to talk about their attainments. So did Dharma Dan's most revered meditation teacher - he specifically told him not to go around saying he's an Arahant. Yet he did the opposite.
Again, I must emphasize that I've read his readings and I respect him a lot. And I really really very frankly think he's a much more advanced practitioner than I am.
But 1st, I don't see any point in us saying "I am confident that he is an Arahant". Because I can't verify from my direct meditative experience.
2nd, Buddha did prohibit the proclamation of such attainments.
3rd, as what you and I kept repeating, whether so-and-so has attainments or not is not the main point. It does not directly benefit, except maybe inspiring some faith (which is temporal and shaky too).
The most important, which you have pointed out also, is to sieve out the gist of the spiritual advices, analyse them and put into practice consistently, so that at the end we see & experience for ourselves what are the true benefits and fruits of the Dharma practice.
I'm sorry for harping on this. I am just concerned about how people get excited by claims of attainments... and if these claims are not true, how it can mislead people, especially because AEN you are a very outstanding young Buddhist and many people look up to you, therefore I think it is very important for you to be very cautious with your recommendations.
Again I want to repeat I think Dharma Dan's writings are good. I only don't find it necessary for anyone to say with absolute certainty that he is an Arahant, unless you are an Arahant yourself. -
Originally posted by _wanderer_:
Well said.. I shall end here.
[b]
The most important, which you have pointed out also, is to sieve out the gist of the spiritual advices, analyse them and put into practice consistently, so that at the end we see & experience for ourselves what are the true benefits and fruits of the Dharma practice.
-
Yeah we should end this.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Well said.. I shall end here. -
Erm not trying to bring back the same discussion again... but like to point out some facts... that in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition only Once Returners and above are allowed to be teachers so according to that no lineage teachers of the Mahasi tradition should be below the Once Returner stage. I'm not implying anything about dharma dan now since the discussion is past... but just like share this fact... and another thing is usually (not all but usually) teachers of pure lineage are enlightened to some degree.. but of course nevertheless one must check on that teacher, the teachings and so on, before following him/her.
-
AEN...arhats must enter sangha within 7 days otherwise he will die???Originally posted by An Eternal Now:(i.e arhats must enter sangha within 7 days otherwise he will die), see http://www.interactivebuddha.com/arahats.shtml. -
I would like to say it is a risky assumption and certainty to say someone is an arahant ,especially when we are not sure of his attainment .We are ordinary sentient beings , we have not severed the concept of "I" so its pretty hard to
gauge if He is an enlightened.
I have read some of his writings ,he is indeed very advanced in His Practice
Again I agree with Wanderer ,becos it is indeed stated clearly in the Vinaya(the precepts of the monastic order) that the Buddha prohibit the mentioning
of attainment .and even in Chan Buddhism in China ,
Chan master only receive Inke (Permission to teach) and not verification of realisation.
On a Mahayana Buddhism level , Mahayana-inspired arahant retreat from the secular world to concentrate on their practice to accumulate wisdom and fortune for the next time to reborn in saha world .This is reflected in the
Stories of Great Monk (Gao Sheng Zhuan) in Chinese Buddhist literature
Even stated in Diamond Sutra that whoever said who have attained Arhatship is indeed nonsense , becos Arhatship is non-attainable
So I feel one should be cautious in recommending Enlightened Teacher
In light of the above statement , I feel its better for AEN to be cautious as wrong move may impede your future path of Bodhi
(AEN , I am sure you dun want to end up engaging endlessly in quarrel on certain unenlightened behaviour of some self-proclaimed teacher )
-
Nope, that's an old myth and dogma within the Theravada tradition. It is not true.Originally posted by Owl^:AEN...arhats must enter sangha within 7 days otherwise he will die??? -
Originally posted by bohiruci:
Usually, permission to teach is already an admission that the teacher is already enlightened to some degrees. And if the teacher is a lineage holder of the Zen tradition, then that means he is definitely enlightened to certain degrees as lineage is not anyhow passed down. Please listen to this interview with Dharma Dan on 'Enlightened Teachers': http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2007/03/05/buddhist-geeks-9-enlightened-teachers/
I would like to say it is a risky assumption and certainty to say someone is an arahant ,especially when we are not sure of his attainment .We are ordinary sentient beings , we have not severed the concept of "I" so its pretty hard to
gauge if He is an enlightened.
I have read some of his writings ,he is indeed very advanced in His Practice
Again I agree with Wanderer ,becos it is indeed stated clearly in the Vinaya(the precepts of the monastic order) that the Buddha prohibit the mentioning
of attainment .and even in Chan Buddhism in China ,
Chan master only receive Inke (Permission to teach) and not verification of realisation.
I'm still confident of Dharma Dan's attainments for various reasons, though I advise forummer's own discretion. Anyway, monastic Vinaya rules do not apply to lay practitioners. Even though they apply to monastic community, those within the inner circles of monastic community will usually know their own dharma-brothers' attainments and if you can ask someone else (and not directly the guy in person), they will usually tell you as well.. as what Ajahn Brahmavamso said regarding this subject.. something like this.. if you ask him directly he may not say, but if you ask the other guy about him close to him in the circle, you may actually know certain things about it. Even though the rules are the rules... there are still some practitioners with deep insights, monks, who did announce their attainment of Arhatship such as Ajahn Maha Boowa who announced that he has attained Arhatship since his young age (he's now 90+). Again I will not verify this claim and advise forummers discretion... and I do agree it may not be a very good thing to break Vinaya rules.
Oh yes, regarding Wanderer's statement What I know for sure, though, is that in the Vinaya, the Buddha forbidded the monastics to "tell the truth about their spiritual attainment". I would like to say this is not exactly true. The Vinaya permits a bhikkhu to notify fellow upasampannas (i.e., bhikkhus and bhikkhunis) of any high attainment that he has, though not directly to lay followers.. which is why as Ajahn Brahm said, don't ask the person directly, ask another Sangha member.On a Mahayana Buddhism level , Mahayana-inspired arahant retreat from the secular world to concentrate on their practice to accumulate wisdom and fortune for the next time to reborn in saha world .This is reflected in the
Interesting. That may be a good practise, I don't know.. but not all arhats follow this way I believe.
Stories of Great Monk (Gao Sheng Zhuan) in Chinese Buddhist literatureEven stated in Diamond Sutra that whoever said who have attained Arhatship is indeed nonsense , becos Arhatship is non-attainable
As I said in the previous post, I have seen absurd examples like 'An arhat cannot think or say that he's an arhat because he realised no-self'... not knowing no-self refers to the nature of reality, not about conventional/relative truths. Diamond sutra is refering to the ultimate sense that there is no self and no attaining, conventionally there is Arhatship, Buddhahood, and so on.So I feel one should be cautious in recommending Enlightened Teacher
Dharma Dan is certainly not a self-proclaimed teacher. He is a qualified teacher of the famous insight meditation tradition within Theravada, the Mahasi Sayadaw lineage. And in that lineage, only practitioners above the stage of Once Returners can become teachers, which means those who have not entered the path, or become enlightened, are not allowed to teach.
In light of the above statement , I feel its better for AEN to be cautious as wrong move may impede your future path of Bodhi
(AEN , I am sure you dun want to end up engaging endlessly in quarrel on certain unenlightened behaviour of some self-proclaimed teacher )
Secondly Wanderer did not mean anything like being cautious in recommending them. I dont see any issues with recommending them. What she meant is we should not emphasize so much about their attainments when recommending them to others. -
how relevant is all these for a true mahayana practitioner? arhat or not, that is not our aspiration, is it?
-
Ehh actually i really don't see the fuss ..
I think everyone should refer to the kalama sutra. Use your wisdom to discern the truth and learning dharma.
Probably there is a kind motive of why Dharma Dan actually declaring his attainment and that we will never know.There are other esteemed venerables who also declared their attainment. But of course, one have to be careful about making such claims and promoting them. -
Erm try not to be sectarian here as this is an open forum embracing all traditions though discounting none. I believe even for a Mahayana practitioner not yet enlightened, there are many things to learn from an Arhat in terms of insights and liberation.Originally posted by Xprobe:how relevant is all these for a true mahayana practitioner? arhat or not, that is not our aspiration, is it? -
the path after "chu li" is totally different, i did not discount it (funny who did?), i was merely stating that it is irrelevantOriginally posted by An Eternal Now:Erm try not to be sectarian here as this is an open forum embracing all traditions though discounting none. I believe even for a Mahayana practitioner not yet enlightened, there are many things to learn from an Arhat in terms of insights and liberation.
each to his own because we have different karmas, thats all, to adopt an all embracing attitude leads to confusions, i can see why you so pro dalai now, while you are at it, why not embrace Jina too? and Qinghai Shang Shi, and Lu Shen Yan? -
Well for an obvious reason: those you mentioned are cults and not practising orthodox dharma.Originally posted by Xprobe:the path after "chu li" is totally different, i did not discount it (funny who did?), i was merely stating that it is irrelevant
each to his own because we have different karmas, thats all, to adopt an all embracing attitude leads to confusions, i can see why you so pro dalai now, while you are at it, why not embrace Jina too? and Qinghai Shang Shi, and Lu Shen Yan?
Whether Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana as long as they practise orthodox dharma and not any deviant practise, that's good.. but otherwise there's a Buddhist saying, it's better not to walk than have a step forward in the wrong direction.. meaning make sure that's the right path, leading to liberation and enlightenment. -
fine. i was a bit off, my apologies
coming back to the main argument, are you saying that the theravada aspiration is relevant to mahayana practice? -
Nope. Theravada aspiration and Mahayana aspiration is different. However, the View is the same.. means the Emptiness that an Arhat realises, and the Emptiness the Bodhisattva realises is the same.Originally posted by Xprobe:fine. i was a bit off, my apologies
coming back to the main argument, are you saying that the theravada aspiration is relevant to mahayana practice? -
i disagree, Arhat "Mie"/ cease" form to realise emptiness while a bodhisattva doesnt because since the essence is emptiness, what is there to cease in the first place?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Nope. Theravada aspiration and Mahayana aspiration is different. However, the View is the same.. means the Emptiness that an Arhat realises, and the Emptiness the Bodhisattva realises is the same.
A bodhisattva even goes to the extend to view nirvana and reincartion as indifferent. This is what an arhat cannot do. -
What you're speaking is in terms of conventional Theravada teaching... and that is true in a sense. For example Nagarjuna denied the Theravada notion of 'cessation' or dependent origination as having discrete causality relations, but rather refines Dependent Origination to refute views of inherent existence (therefore D.O=Emptiness). So the Madhyamika teaching of Emptiness is a further refinement on that understanding that deconstructs even subtler views of inherent existence on the 'element' level so to speak.Originally posted by Xprobe:i disagree, Arhat "Mie"/ cease" emptiness while a bodhisattva doesnt because since the essence is emptiness, what is there to cease in the first place?
Or you can say... there are three turnings of the wheel... first is the Theravada turning, the four noble truths, and so on. The next is on Emptiness... the third turning is on the Luminous Buddha Nature.
However, though you may enter from the first turning, doesn't mean you cannot realise Emptiness and the luminous aspect of our Buddha Nature.. but the teachings dont emphasize second and third turning. Actually for example Theravada also teaches luminosity as well (see the chapter 'Consciousness: Invisible, Radiant, Limitless' at http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2003/winter/ajahnamaro.html) with many Theravada teachers emphasising this part (such as the radiant unborn Citta), and the teachings of luminosity can be seen in the Vipassana teachings as well. Modern Theravada teachers like Dharma Dan and many other Theravada teachers are also comfortable and familiar with Mahayana teachings on Emptiness and Luminosity.
Anyway in terms of direct, intuitive experience and insights, the View, Emptiness, is the same thing. Theravada's teachings on the Three Dharma Seals and Dependent Origination when realised deeply also leads to the realisation of emptiness. But when comes to interpretation and teaching, the different traditions have different way of teaching.. such as in Tibetan Buddhism there is the difference of Rangtong and Shentong style of teaching. -
thanks for the info, lets end this side-tracked topic here
-
I do agree on this point.. that arhats still have a subtle inclination to nirvana dharma.Originally posted by Xprobe:A bodhisattva even goes to the extend to view nirvana and reincartion as indifferent. This is what an arhat cannot do. -
Hahaha.. let's get back to TS's topicOriginally posted by Xprobe:thanks for the info, lets end this side-tracked topic here -
-
del