Some said arhats are selfish cos they are striving for Nirvana for themselves. But if they have concept of self, how do they attain Nirvana?
they also said, Theravada is an inferior vehicle as compared to Mahayana, cos striving to be a Buddhahood to save all sentient beings is more noble then saving oneself.
if like that, then why does the Buddha taught the dhamma for 49 years on arhatship?
What if the Buddha upon his Enlightenment finds that what he realised was too profound for the people to understand, and he did not turn the wheel of Dharma?!
THE Blessed One having attained Buddhahood while resting under the shepherd's Nigrodha tree on the banks of the river Neranjara, pronounced this solemn utterance:
"How sure his pathway in this wood,
Who follows truth's unchanging call!
How blessed, to be kind and good,
And practice self-restraint in all!
How light, from passion to be free,
And sensual joys to let go by!
And yet his greatest bliss will be
When he has quelled the pride of 'I'.
"I have recognized the deepest truth, which is sublime and peace-giving' but difficult to understand; for most men move in a sphere of worldly interests and find their delight in worldly desires. The worldling will not understand the doctrine, for to him there is happiness in selfhood only, and the bliss that lies in a complete surrender to truth is unintelligible to him. He will call resignation what to the enlightened mind is the purest joy. He will see annihilation where the perfected one finds immortality. He will regard as death what the conqueror of self knows to be life everlasting. The truth remains hidden from him who is in the bondage of hate and desire. Nirvana remains incomprehensible and mysterious to the vulgar whose minds are beclouded with worldly interests. Should I preach the doctrine and mankind not comprehend it, it would bring me only fatigue and trouble."
Mara, the Evil One, on hearing the words of the Blessed Buddha, approached and said: "Be greeted, thou Holy One. Thou hast attained the highest bliss and it is time for thee to enter into the final Nirvana."
Then Brahma Sahampati descended from the heavens and, having worshiped the Blessed One, said: "Alas! the world must perish, should the Holy One, the Tathagata, decide not to teach the Dharma. Be merciful to those that struggle; have compassion upon the sufferers; pity the creatures who are hopelessly entangled in the snares of sorrow. There are some beings that are almost free from the dust of worldliness. If they hear not the doctrine preached, they will be lost. But if they hear it, they will believe and be saved."
The Blessed One, full of compassion, looked with the eye of a Buddha upon all sentient creatures, and he saw among them beings whose minds were but scarcely covered by the dust of worldliness, who were of good disposition and easy to instruct. He saw some who were conscious of the dangers of lust and wrong doing. And the Blessed One said to Brahma Sahampati: "Wide open be the door of immortality to all who have ears to hear. May they receive the Dharma with faith."
Then the Blessed One turned to Mara, saying: "I shall not pass into the final Nirvana, O Evil One, until there be not only brethren and sisters of an Order, but also lay disciples of both sexes, who shall have become true hearers, wise, well trained, ready and learned, versed in the scriptures, fulfilling all the greater and lesser duties, correct in life, walking according to the precepts-until they, having thus themselves learned the doctrine, shall be able to give information to others concerning it, preach it, make it known, establish it, open it, minutely explain it, and make it clear-until they, when others start vain doctrines, shall be able to vanquish and refute them, and so to spread the wonderworking truth abroad. I shall not die until the pure religion of truth shall have become successful, prosperous, widespread, and popular in all its full extent-until, in a word, it shall have been well proclaimed among men!"
Then Brahma Sahampati understood that the Blessed One had granted his request and would preach the doctrine.
Originally posted by Rooney9:Some said arhats are selfish cos they are striving for Nirvana for themselves. But if they have concept of self, how do they attain Nirvana?
they also said, Theravada is an inferior vehicle as compared to Mahayana, cos striving to be a Buddhahood to save all sentient beings is more noble then saving oneself.
if like that, then why does the Buddha taught the dhamma for 49 years on arhatship?
There may others who think differently .I believe it is more of an emphasis of aspiration than anything else. Was'nt the Buddha a Noble Bodhisattva, before his Parinirvana, turn the wheel of Dharma.
I have said it already. if anyone has concept of self or anatta, how can one attain arhatship.
what the Buddha has taught, whether arhatship or bodhisatvva, are Truths. its a matter of choices really. if you strive for arhatship or bodhistavva, its up to you really, as the path for both are different. you need many aeons to practise your perfections if you strive for bodhisatvvahood. so is striving for arhatship inferior? If you have concept of inferior or superior, you will not realised the truth and enlightenment.
For myself, it is easier to practice Mahayana Vehicle as a layman, concept of selflessness in outward compassion is easier to practise, and were it not because of Mahayana Buddhism, would I have even become a Buddhist at all?!
Arahatship is the path of the Sons of the Conqueror, I have the utmost respect for them!
To follow their path entails renunciation, which I am not ready to do!
The term Hinayana is now used less, Theravada, the ''Teaching of the Elders"with due respect accrue to the them!
I think you have misconceptions on Theravada. also renunciation is more than being a monk/nun. to renounce your selfishness, ignorance, greed, craving etc. This can be observed by lay followers.
One thing I like about Theravada is their strict adherence to vinaya and also their scriptures, which are considered as the original teachings of the Buddha.
I may have been wrong, but the most effective method advocated by Buddha himself is still monkhood.
Anyway, one of the 14 root downfalls of the Bodhisattva Vows is:-
"Causing the Shravaka family to abandon completely their vows of self liberation(pratimoksha) and embrace the Mahayana without any special purpose"
Another vow:-
''Cause others to hold the view that followers of Shravaka will never be able to eradicate their defilements"
yes, but not all can be monks/nuns. the Buddha has taught it is not the business of monks/nuns to worship the relics. on the other hand, if lay followers can worship the relics, they are blessed with merits.
i think, to have concept of Theravada or Mahayana is erroneous, as Truths has no such distinctions. so the Buddha's teachings have no distinctionsfor arhatship and bodhistavva. distinctions are made by people who are not enlightened, like you, me and others.
Originally posted by Rooney9:I have said it already. if anyone has concept of self or anatta, how can one attain arhatship.
what the Buddha has taught, whether arhatship or bodhisatvva, are Truths. its a matter of choices really. if you strive for arhatship or bodhistavva, its up to you really, as the path for both are different. you need many aeons to practise your perfections if you strive for bodhisatvvahood. so is striving for arhatship inferior? If you have concept of inferior or superior, you will not realised the truth and enlightenment.
It is because we identify ourself with "self", that we are striving for"no self" . for if there is "no self" in the first place, is there still a need to strive at all?
of course arhat's knowledge and powers are not comparable to that of the Buddha, but the truths they see are the same, ie seeing things as they truly are and also Nirvana.
Originally posted by Rooney9:yes, but not all can be monks/nuns. the Buddha has taught it is not the business of monks/nuns to worship the relics. on the other hand, if lay followers can worship the relics, they are blessed with merits.
i think, to have concept of Theravada or Mahayana is erroneous, as Truths has no such distinctions. so the Buddha's teachings have no distinctionsfor arhatship and bodhistavva. distinctions are made by people who are not enlightened, like you, me and others.
I share your sentiments. But they are there, hence the tension.
The fundamental difference is the treatment of defilements, anger,lust etc., Theravada attitude towards them are to see them as negative. While Mahayana embrace them, or rather as positive to order to experience and understand them.
Originally posted by Rooney9:I think you have misconceptions on Theravada. also renunciation is more than being a monk/nun. to renounce your selfishness, ignorance, greed, craving etc. This can be observed by lay followers.
One thing I like about Theravada is their strict adherence to vinaya and also their scriptures, which are considered as the original teachings of the Buddha.
Their weakness is also adherence to tradition, like the ordaining of bhikunis. The lack of flexibility.
Originally posted by Weychin:I share your sentiments. But they are there, hence the tension.
The fundamental difference is the treatment of defilements, anger,lust etc., Theravada attitude towards them are to see them as negative. While Mahayana embrace them, or rather as positive to order to experience and understand them.
Like I have said, if there are concept of negative or positive, how can one attained arhatship.
and what do you mean by theravada way of treating them as negative? again the dhamma is being taught by the Buddha. The Dhamma has no distinctions of theravada and mahayana. distinctions are made by unenlightened people like you and me and others. got my message?
Originally posted by Weychin:Their weakness is also adherence to tradition, like the ordaining of bhikunis. The lack of flexibility.
nah, they are following the vinaya taught by the Buddha. can one anyhow change or pervert the vinaya taught by the Buddha. following the vinaya is considered as inflexibility?
back to the basics, rules = mental development = wisdom
it depends on how one define self...
turn it another way...does an animal possess self...as in itself? Itself is a label invented by humans to differentiate from animals...or so called lower beings for most...
turn it back...what self is attached to humans then? Oneself, ourselves, themselves...the definitions at this level is basically to distinguish...
on higher plane..say on philosophical level...self is not just a basic definition but is dependent on experiences, perception, attitudes, cultures etc. and that would further implicate into beings, non-beings, being-less...thing and nothing-ness...
on the supposed highest realm of buddhist philosophy, self is mere mental construct, projection etc.....the wrong construct would lead to karmic consequences..etc...
No one can completely attach from oneself...when one is sick or in need....protecting self is a natural instinct...self sacrifice can be rare and to a limited extent..till a point where one could stop and conscious of protecting oneself...some will think its self-ish ...
Thus, it has multiple levels of meanings and definitions and this could be endless lingual contortions.....Language is a corner stone of all philosophies...no one can escape its complexity human mental constructs are complex....
Originally posted by Fcukpap:it depends on how one define self...
turn it another way...does an animal possess self...as in itself? Itself is a label invented by humans to differentiate from animals...or so called lower beings for most...
turn it back...what self is attached to humans then? Oneself, ourselves, themselves...the definitions at this level is basically to distinguish...
on higher plane..say on philosophical level...self is not just a basic definition but is dependent on experiences, perception, attitudes, cultures etc. and that would further implicate into beings, non-beings, being-less...thing and nothing-ness...
on the supposed highest realm of buddhist philosophy, self is mere mental construct, projection etc.....the wrong construct would lead to karmic consequences..etc...
No one can completely attach from oneself...when one is sick or in need....protecting self is a natural instinct...self sacrifice can be rare and to a limited extent..till a point where one could stop and conscious of protecting oneself...some will think its self-ish ...
Thus, it has multiple levels of meanings and definitions and this could be endless lingual contortions.....Language is a corner stone of all philosophies...no one can escape its complexity human mental constructs are complex....
In one word; contextual, hee! hee!
Self or self awareness in difference grades, eg. higher primates would have no difficulty in identifying themselves opposite the mirror, while lesser animals will feel threaten.
Human is the most numerous in numbers outside the invertebrate world, and our society is the most complex, hence the concept of self is the most highly evolved and also the most convoluted.
Originally posted by Rooney9:i think, to have concept of Theravada or Mahayana is erroneous, as Truths has no such distinctions. so the Buddha's teachings have no distinctionsfor arhatship and bodhistavva. distinctions are made by people who are not enlightened, like you, me and others.
Actually the Buddha clearly distinguished between arhat and bodhisattva. Even in Theravada, a Bodhisattva is held in higher esteem.
Originally posted by Rooney9:Like I have said, if there are concept of negative or positive, how can one attained arhatship.
and what do you mean by theravada way of treating them as negative? again the dhamma is being taught by the Buddha. The Dhamma has no distinctions of theravada and mahayana. distinctions are made by unenlightened people like you and me and others. got my message?
If anger has not arisen, then there won't difference between anger and no anger, the cloudiness of emotion, and clarity of no emotion. Everything is seen as the same!
I do not disagree with you, but I am no arahant, therefore division exist as of now. I am still dualistic.
yes thats right Weychin...
at another level...deconstruction of the text comes into play as well....but the paradox would also arise when one starts to interpret....as some scholars would be against interpretation...
analysis may change or shift certain preconceived meanings...like a ray of white light passing through a prism...it breaks into different color components...
Language is the "invisible hand" at work while one is engaging in reasoning...
Originally posted by Weychin:If anger has not arisen, then there won't difference between anger and no anger, the cloudiness of emotion, and clarity of no emotion. Everything is seen as the same!
if anger, greed or craving has not arisen, then its neutral ie it is neither positive or negative. there is no need to add further really.
Originally posted by Fcukpap:yes thats right Weychin...
at another level...deconstruction of the text comes into play as well....but the paradox would also arise when one starts to interpret....as some scholars would be against interpretation...
analysis may change or shift certain preconceived meanings...like a ray of white light passing through a prism...it breaks into different color components...
Language is the "invisible hand" at work while one is engaging in reasoning...
Interpretation require theories, interpretation holds, theory holds, interpretation fails.....
I study the interest of self, beneficial to self' good", non beneficial to self"bad", neither, then "neutral". Hence rises labelling with grades of emotion.
Regarding 'self':
(Thusness)
if one still have self, one will not attained enlightenment. dunno why some people say arhats are selfish in that they only saved themselves and not strive to be a Buddha in order to save all sentient beings.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Regarding 'self':
Life (Self) is nothing other than the continuous flow of the Now Moment.
The Now Moment ceases as it arises. This moment must completely ceased
and serves as the CAUSE for the next moment to arise.
Therefore Self is a process of series Self1, Self2, Self3, Self4, Self5, Self6...etc
A fixed entity 'Self' does not exist, what really exists is a momentary Self.
Under deep meditation, one is able to observe and sense the karmic and mental factors from moment to moment,
it is these factors that are succeeded from moment to moment and life and life but not a fixed entity.(Thusness)
"I" (I am talking about myself ) talk the talk, but do I do the walk like the way I talk, apparent not!
it is a world of relativity .... one changes to the change of another as well... religion is ultimately a subjective experience... a passion for compassion