View Full Version : simple logic - by riju
Logic no 1.......Buddhas are wisest of the wise.
Logic no 2.......All buddhas made a better universe before going to Nirvana
(as per Lotus sutra)
Logic no 3.......A desire is a must to make a better Universe.
Logic no 4.......Desire is a source of suffering.
Conclusion....
Follow only one line of HEART sutra {neglect all other sutras) of Guatam Buddha
TO BECOME A BUDDHA.
That line in the Heart sutra is " I am and I am Not"
When desire creates unbearable suffering remember "I am not", till suffering
subsides.Otherwise go on increasing universe of relationship following the path of "I am".
If one selects the ingredients of Love, Compassion and positive attributes in
relationships, sufferings will slowdown in coming and the path will be faster.
Question for Aloka and Others....Where am I wrong in this logic and why should I
read and learn beyond this about Buddhism?
Logic no 1.......Buddhas are wisest of the wise.
Logic no 2.......All buddhas made a better universe while they abided in here-&-now Nirvana (as per Truth sutra)
Logic no 3.......A wise desire (sammā sankappa) is a must to make a better Universe.
Logic no 4.......An ignorant desire (tanha) is the source of suffering.
That line is " I am and I am Not"
When desire creates unbearable suffering remember "I am not", till suffering subsides.
Otherwise go on increasing universe of relationship, following the understanding "I am" is a conventional expression.
If one selects the ingredients of Love, Compassion and positive attributes in
relationships, sufferings will slowdown in coming and the path will be faster.
However, ingredients of Love, Compassion and positive attributes in
relationships cannot in themselves fully extinguish suffering because
separation from the ingredients of the Loved can still bring suffering.
However, ingredients of Love, Compassion and positive attributes in
relationships cannot in themselves fully extinguish suffering because
separation from the ingredients of the Loved can still bring suffering.
Exactly, when this happens apply the heart sutra "I am not". By this suffering will get transcended and Buddha hood will be nearer. No need of Hinayana, Thervada, Mahayan, Dozgchen or any other sutra.
The Thinker
05 Jul 12, 16:55
riju , you cant just take one sutra and then call it buddhism.
And its a lot more to Buddhism then the part of suffering, you have to study and re study all the texts to get a bigger understanding of the truth. sometimes it seems that you refuse to read the other texts to actually see what they say and with that you can learn more.
To find, see and understand the truth can take all the life and not just from read one text.
The thinker
riju , you cant just take one sutra and then call it buddhism.
And its a lot more to Buddhism then the part of suffering, you have to study and re study all the texts to get a bigger understanding of the truth. sometimes it seems that you refuse to read the other texts to actually see what they say and with that you can learn more.
To find, see and understand the truth can take all the life and not just from read one text.
The thinker
Thinker ,
The purpose is to reach Buddhahood . Why are you complicating your life by study , study and more study and then getting nothing and then life ends? What is this logic?
Please give me a right advice either by finding flaw(defect) in my simple logic or you all surrender to my simple logic.
One should withdraw from existence to a lonely place when suffering becomes unbearable and then practice "I am not", which by logic is a bigger fact. In that state collect inflows (power) and again come back to people,life, existence and grow to Buddhahood.
To me this looks beautiful, correct and simple method until some one finds a mistake in this logic.
The Thinker
06 Jul 12, 06:02
Hi riju.
i am reading much because i am preparing my self to become a monk and then i will hopefully use the rest of my life to cultivating. Budfhism to me are much more then just read some few sutras an think i can become enlighten.
The thinker
i am reading much because i am preparing my self to become a monk and then i will hopefully use the rest of my life to cultivating. Budfhism to me are much more then just read some few sutras an think i can become enlighten.
The thinker
May be you have to study to become a monk and help others. Wonderful and all happiness and success to you
But Thinker.
My position seems to be different. I PRACTICE MEDITATION.
To clarify my position further...
When practicing "I am", i live in a big family, socialise with a lot of friends, run a big business with a lot of employees as a head.
When I feel the stress, I withdraw to "I am not", leaving everything to my respective successors and practice meditation in a lonely place.
Pegembara
06 Jul 12, 07:06
Logic no 1.......Buddhas are wisest of the wise.
Logic no 2.......All buddhas made a better universe before going to Nirvana
(as per Lotus sutra)
Logic no 3.......A desire is a must to make a better Universe.
Logic no 4.......Desire is a source of suffering.
Logic 2 ........ It is only after attaining enlightenment that the Buddha started his ministry.
Logic 3 ........ That desire comes from unconditional love and compassion for all beings.
Logic 4 ........ How can the wish to liberate beings be a cause of suffering to one who has no more clinging?
Logic 2 ........ It is only after attaining enlightenment that the Buddha started his ministry.
Logic 3 ........ That desire comes from unconditional love and compassion for all beings.
Logic 4 ........ How can the wish to liberate beings be a cause of suffering to one who has no more clinging?
Logic 2......Before enlightment he was a layman, after enlightment he became a Buddha. After this he understood the Existence and devised a method to help others.
And then he gave the summary of His experiences in various sutras for various persons. For me he gave me Lotus sutra, not to become a Buddha, but to become a Bhoddisattva. Our Guatam Buddha has not yet gone to Nirvan. He is enlarging his better universe and I am a part of this universe doing my part, and he has given me a "Simple Logic" to work practically. Where are the studies coming into picture?
Logic3.....correct. The desire of unconditional love and compassion is the fastest method to grow towards Buddhahood.
Logic 4..."I am" is clinging to a desire to improve and enlarge your relationships. This will cause sufferings to Bhoddhisattvas but not to a Buddha.
But the main purpose is to rest in between by following "I am not" and regain the strength.
andyrobyn
06 Jul 12, 09:40
Different strokes for different folks ... also horses for courses.
Dave The Seeker
06 Jul 12, 13:07
you cant just take one sutra and then call it Buddhism.
This is very true, but he also flips back to the Lotus Suttra as well
Please give me a right advice either by finding flaw(defect) in my simple logic or you all surrender to my simple logic.
Become less attached to yourself and your concept as being what all should follow. Study more than the one line of "I am" which is what you are saying here, "I am" right and there is no other way.
As Buddhists we shouldn't surrender to anyones ideas other than that of The Buddha. And His weren't ideas, they were the teachings of The Truth.
With Metta
This is very true, but he also flips back to the Lotus Suttra as well
If studying lotus sutra only the path to Buddhahood and Nirvana opens, Is there any thing wrong with it?
This is very true, but he also flips back to the Lotus Suttra as well
Become less attached to yourself and your concept as being what all should follow. Study more than the one line of "I am" which is what you are saying here, "I am" right and there is no other way.
As Buddhists we shouldn't surrender to anyones ideas other than that of The Buddha. And His weren't ideas, they were the teachings of The Truth.
With Metta
Are you not diverting from my first letter "simple Logic". I am refering to Heart sutra. "I am" is required to create the Universe and "I am" , "I am not" is the main mantra of heart sutra which expands the lotus sutra.
I have to be attached to "Simple Logic " if it takes me to Nirvan and Buddhahood. Is that not simple? And is it not right advice to reject therwada, hinayana, Dzogchen, vajardhara and other sutras for all of you if there is no FLAW" AND WALK FAST RATHER THAN LEARN , LEARN AND LEARN ALL YOUR LIVES TO YOUR TARGET.
, you cant just take one sutra and then call it buddhism.
Is this not an attachment to fixed idea that buddhism cannot be learnt, followed and WALKED just by studying one sutra
If studying lotus sutra only the path to Buddhahood and Nirvana opens, Is there any thing wrong with it?
Please read my message in your Beyond Belief forum topic thread, riju.
The Thinker
07 Jul 12, 08:11
riju .
I have to be attached to "Simple Logic " if it takes me to Nirvan and Buddhahoodou
No you can not be attached to anything to get to Nibbana or get Boddhahood. To attain Enlightenment you cant have attachment to anything. And you have to abandon the wish to become enlightent too. you simply have to rely on the Buddhas teachings to make it.
Is this not an attachment to fixed idea that buddhism cannot be learnt, followed and WALKED just by studying one sutra
Then it is no longer Buddhism. and you also have to understand the Nobel truth of suffering and you have to follow and understand the 8 folded path. Your morality be very very good.
You see it is really difficult to attain Buddhahood and Nibbama.
The thinker
riju .
ou
No you can not be attached to anything to get to Nibbana or get Boddhahood. To attain Enlightenment you cant have attachment to anything. And you have to abandon the wish to become enlightent too. you simply have to rely on the Buddhas teachings to make it.
Then it is no longer Buddhism. and you also have to understand the Nobel truth of suffering and you have to follow and understand the 8 folded path. Your morality be very very good.
You see it is really difficult to attain Buddhahood and Nibbama.
The thinker
As always. We agree to disagree and be happy.
The Thinker
07 Jul 12, 11:01
What in the things i was writing are you not agree about?
And why is that?
can you explain why you dont see the full view of the Buddha teaching?
I do know you not a buddhist.
The thinker
What in the things i was writing are you not agree about?
And why is that?
can you explain why you dont see the full view of the Buddha teaching?
I do know you not a buddhist.
The thinker
Dear Thinker,
What else can I say? I feel amused.
Even Guatam Buddha in Lotus sutra says that my earlier teachings were expedient means and need not be considered once one devlopes deep understanding of Lotus sutra.
The Thinker
07 Jul 12, 11:24
Glad i can make you amused :)
I still dont understand how you can have so many things you say ,and all it come down to for you is to see nothing else then your own words as the right way.
Can you explain why it is only Lotus sutra and meditation you want ? what about all the other texts and teachings from Buddha? don
I dont want to say any bad about your views but sometimes it seem like you say things you take out of thin air so to speak.
The thinker
Hi riju
Can you decide which one of the 3 current threads you've been posting in about the lotus sutra you want to continue with, please ?
(this is including the thread "riju(lotus sutra)" in the Mahayana forum)
Dave The Seeker
07 Jul 12, 11:31
My friend, this member and others are attached to the thought they are always right in their understanding.
Then there are some others who are open to the thought of discussion.
I see no point in trying to engage the ones who aren't open to meaningful discussion.
With Metta
Shariputra said, "No, World-Honored One. This rich man simply made it possible for his sons to escape the peril of fire and preserve their lives. He did not commit a falsehood. Why do I say this? Because if they were able to preserve their lives, then they had already obtained a plaything of sorts. And how much more so when, through an expedient means, they are rescued from that burning house! World-Honored One, even if the rich man had not given them the tiniest carriage, he would still not be guilty of falsehood. Why? Because this rich man had earlier made up his mind that he would employ an expedient means to cause his sons to escape. Using a device of this kind was no act of falsehood. How much less so, then, when the rich man knew that his wealth was limitless and he intended to enrich and benefit his sons by giving each of them a large carriage."
The above para is from chapter 3..Lotus sutra named "Simile and Parable"
Also read chapter 2 and 3 . You will get the answers. I will answer any specific question you raise after reading as well.
Buddha had not committed any falsehood to teach earlier to this. etc.
The Thinker
07 Jul 12, 13:09
I have only one question riju :)
I would like to hear your view of this texts you send link of.
What is your understanding of what it means? please use your own words and not a new quote.
The thinker
I have only one question riju :)
I would like to hear your view of this texts you send link of.
What is your understanding of what it means? please use your own words and not a new quote.
The thinker
NOTHING EXISTS/EMPTINESS/SUNIATA has to be experienced if one starts on Lotus sutra.
My one mistake was that I assumed experience of Emptiness is widespread among Mahayanists. But now I undrstand that it is a rare experience.
Thinker and many others are right in their thinking and I am wrong.One has to study various sutras and meditate till one experiences Emptiness. I call this path Hinayana/Therwada.
After experience of Emptiness one goes thro a Blank (gap). This experience is very vivid and sharp and never to be forgotten.
And then the path of Mahayana starts and all the earlier sutras become almost redundent (not immeditely, but slowly) and "I am" (Existence) and "I am not" (Emptiness) Wisdom takes over and then the Lotus sutra opens up.
Dear riju,
Logic no 1.......Buddhas are wisest of the wise.
Logic no 2.......All buddhas made a better universe before going to Nirvana
(as per Lotus sutra)
Logic no 3.......A desire is a must to make a better Universe.
Logic no 4.......Desire is a source of suffering.
Conclusion....
Follow only one line of HEART sutra {neglect all other sutras) of Guatam Buddha
TO BECOME A BUDDHA.
That line in the Heart sutra is " I am and I am Not"
Where in the Heart Sutra is this stated? Reading the various translations available online, none contain the line "I am and I am Not":
Heart Sutra (translation Kwan Um School of Zen)
Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva when practicing deeply the Prajna Paramita perceives that all five skandhas are empty and is saved from all suffering and distress.
Sariputra, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness.
Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness. They do not appear or disappear, are not tainted or pure, do not increase or decrease. Therefore, in emptiness, no form, no feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness. No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind, no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no object of mind, no realm of eyes and so forth until no realm of mind consciousness. No ignorance and also no extinction of it and so forth until no old age and death and also no extinction of them.
No suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also no attainment with nothing to attain.
The Bodhisattva depends on Prajna Paramita and the mind is no hindrance. Without any hindrance, no fears exist. Far apart from any perverted views, one dwells in Nirvana.
In the three worlds, all Buddhas depend on Prajna Paramita and attain Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi.
Therefore, know that Prajna Paramita is the great transcendent mantra, is the great bright mantra, is the utmost mantra, is the supreme mantra which is able to relieve all suffering and is true not false. So proclaim the Prajna Paramita mantra, proclaim the mantra which says:
Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha.
http://www.dharmanet.org/coursesM/40/HeartSutras.htm
There is no mention of "is" (asti) or "is not" (nasti), not even in the original Sanskrit. If you claim there is a line "I am and I am Not", then where is it?
prajñāpāramita-hṛdayam sūtra
oṃ namo bhagavatyai ārya prajñāpāramitāyai!
ārya-avalokiteśvaro bodhisattvo gambhīrāṃ prajñāpāramitā caryāṃ caramāṇo vyavalokayati sma: panca-skandhās tāṃś ca svābhava śūnyān paśyati sma.
iha śāriputra: rūpaṃ śūnyatā śūnyataiva rūpaṃ; rūpān na pṛthak śūnyatā śunyatāyā na pṛthag rūpaṃ; yad rūpaṃ sā śūnyatā; ya śūnyatā tad rūpaṃ. evam eva vedanā saṃjñā saṃskāra vijñānaṃ.
iha śāriputra: sarva-dharmāḥ śūnyatā-lakṣaṇā, anutpannā aniruddhā, amalā avimalā, anūnā aparipūrṇāḥ.
tasmāc chāriputra śūnyatayāṃ na rūpaṃ na vedanā na saṃjñā na saṃskārāḥ na vijñānam. na cakṣuḥ-śrotra-ghrāna-jihvā-kāya-manāṃsi. na rūpa-śabda-gandha-rasa-spraṣṭavaya-dharmāh. Na cakṣūr-dhātur. yāvan na manovijñāna-dhātuḥ. na-avidyā na-avidyā-kṣayo. yāvan na jarā-maraṇam na jarā-maraṇa-kṣayo. na duhkha-samudaya-nirodha-margā. Na jñānam, na prāptir na-aprāptiḥ.
tasmāc chāriputra aprāptitvād bodhisattvasya prajñāpāramitām āśritya viharatyacittāvaraṇaḥ. cittāvaraṇa-nāstitvād atrastro viparyāsa-atikrānto niṣṭhā-nirvāṇa-prāptaḥ.
tryadhva-vyavasthitāḥ sarva-buddhāḥ prajñāpāramitām āśrityā-anuttarāṃ samyaksambodhim abhisambuddhāḥ.
tasmāj jñātavyam: prajñāpāramitā mahā-mantro mahā-vidyā mantro 'nuttara-mantro samasama-mantraḥ, sarva duḥkha praśamanaḥ, satyam amithyatāt. prajñāpāramitāyām ukto mantraḥ.
tadyathā: gate gate pāragate pārasaṃgate bodhi svāhā.
iti prajñāpāramitā-hṛdayam samāptam.
http://www.visiblemantra.org/heartsutra.html
Could you provide a reference for the conclusion you formed based on the Heart Sutra? There is absolutely nothing in it akin to "tat tvam asi" - thou art that - or "eso ham asmi, neso ham asmi" - I am thus, I am not thus - so it's impossible to tell where you're coming up with this. The Buddha demonstrated time and time again that "I am" is a false notion, particularly in regard to the five aggregates.
When desire creates unbearable suffering remember "I am not", till suffering
subsides.Otherwise go on increasing universe of relationship following the path of "I am".
If one selects the ingredients of Love, Compassion and positive attributes in
relationships, sufferings will slowdown in coming and the path will be faster.
Where is it taught to follow the path of "I am" in order to build love, compassion, and other positive attributes? The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
Question for Aloka and Others....Where am I wrong in this logic and why should I
read and learn beyond this about Buddhism?
There is no logic when premises are flawed and understanding is incomplete.
Abhaya
Dear riju,
Where in the Heart Sutra is this stated? Reading the various translations available online, none contain the line "I am and I am Not":
Abhya,
Thanks for putting in so much effort and you are good. I quoted from my memory of past few years and named it heart sutra. I will have to go thro some old papers and dig out the necessary information. It may come out that i am correct in my refrence or I might be slightly out. By tomorrow I will clarify it or admit my mistake and give the sutra proper name.
NOTHING EXISTS/EMPTINESS/SUNIATA has to be experienced if one starts on Lotus sutra.
After experience of Emptiness one goes thro a Blank (gap). This experience is very vivid and sharp and never to be forgotten.
in buddhism, emptiness is not 'blankness'. in buddhism, emptiness is empty of selfhood
for example, the world's largest office building, constructed from millions of tonnes of steel & concrete, full of office furniture, office computers, lights, elevators & office workers, is empty (sunnata)
a box, full to the top with chocolates, is empty (shunyata)
an Olympic swimming pool, full to the brim with water, is empty (sunnata)
similarly, the human life , comprised from physical matter, feeling, perception, thought function & consciousness, is empty (shunyata)
;D
riju,
I am a little unclear as to what you mean by the experience of emptiness, I know you said it is
vivid and sharp however could you elucidate please?
thank you
:hands:
Abhya,
Thanks for putting in so much effort and you are good. I quoted from my memory of past few years and named it heart sutra. I will have to go thro some old papers and dig out the necessary information. It may come out that i am correct in my refrence or I might be slightly out. By tomorrow I will clarify it or admit my mistake and give the sutra proper name.
Today I searched from my old heap of papers. I could not find the reference for you. I had at a certain stage donated a big heap of sutras (printed from internet), as i thought i will not require them.
May be it was sutra with a different name . One line reverbates in my mind from old memories. It is
" Shubti, I have 32 points and then he says I do not have 32 points.
It was like "have" and "Not have"
"I am " and then immediately "I am not". It goes on like this for a full page.
Any how what ever the sutra, my explanation is very important for me for "I am" and "I am not"
Dear riju,
Where is it taught to follow the path of "I am" in order to build love, compassion, and other positive attributes? The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
There is no logic when premises are flawed and understanding is incomplete.
Abhaya
What I meant was that one has to live a full life. Have sons, daughters, grandchildern , relatives, friends, employees etc, etc, and if one is positve with them, his kingdom will grow faster. This is the basic lesson I got from understanding of Lotus sutra. When one abides in emptiness one knows and thinks that "I am not". All is emptiness.
It requires a force of ego "I am" to break this state and expand and create ones universe.
in buddhism, emptiness is not 'blankness'. in buddhism, emptiness is empty of selfhood
for example, the world's largest office building, constructed from millions of tonnes of steel & concrete, full of office furniture, office computers, lights, elevators & office workers, is empty (sunnata)
a box, full to the top with chocolates, is empty (shunyata)
an Olympic swimming pool, full to the brim with water, is empty (sunnata)
similarly, the human life , comprised from physical matter, feeling, perception, thought function & consciousness, is empty (shunyata)
;D
Till one has not experienced Emptiness, this may be the method of teaching required to goad a layman to proceed and experience Emptiness by meditation.
But The real experience of Emptiness I have tried to express in words is on "Nothing Exists". Please read that thread.
riju,
I am a little unclear as to what you mean by the experience of emptiness, I know you said it is however could you elucidate please?
thank you
:hands:
If one reads the introduction in Lotus sutra, it says 12000 arhats joined Guatam Buddha at Eagle peak.
And later in chapter 3 (Similie and Parable) only 1200 were left who accepted the Greater vehicle inspite of Guatam Budha presence.
The reason was that the experience of Emptiness is extremely wonderful in the sense you are totally inside and outside at peace. Imagine even your sub- sub-- consciousness is empty. Wisdom of Emptiness has gone in so deep that seeing , percieving and not perceiving is not happening.
The arhats who rejected Greater Vehicle have been seeing the difference between themselves and Guatam Buddha. Guatam had respect, comfort in his living style. His Knowledge was limitless yet these arhats rejected the temptation of becoming a Buddha.
Dear riju,
Where in the Heart Sutra is this stated? Reading the various translations available online, none contain the line "I am and I am Not":
It is Diamond sutra ..chapter 17 , Name of the chapter...ULTIMATELY THERE IS NO SELF
Till one has not experienced Emptiness, this may be the method of teaching required to goad a layman to proceed and experience Emptiness by meditation. But The real experience of Emptiness I have tried to express in words is on "Nothing Exists". Please read that thread.
Not so.
The method to goad the layman is the mind empty of content, i.e., nothingness. In Buddhism, this is a samadhi state; called arupa jhana. Please study Wikipedia, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar%C5%ABpajh%C4%81na). The real experience of Emptiness is seeing all things void of self, as follows:
It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty. In what respect is it said that the world is empty? Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
Suñña Sutta: Empty (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.085.than.html)
In MN 26 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html), when before his enlightenment, Buddha rejected nothingness to be Nirvana, as follows:
In this way did Alara Kalama, my teacher, place me, his pupil, on the same level with himself and pay me great honor. But the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to Awakening, nor to Nirvana, but only to reappearance in the dimension of nothingness.' So, dissatisfied with that Dhamma, I left.
In MN 43 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html), Buddha compared nothingness to emptiness, explaining both were experiences of liberation but emptiness is superior (and different) to nothingness:
Now, to the extent that there is nothingness mind-release, the unprovoked mind-release is declared the foremost. And this unprovoked mind-release is empty of passion, empty of aversion, empty of delusion.
In MN 140 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html), Buddha taught nothingness is a conditioned state of mind and neither the truth nor Nirvana:
One discerns that: 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure & bright as this towards the dimension of the nothingness and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated.'
One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within (Nirvana). One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
His release, being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever is deceptive is false; Nirvana — the undeceptive — is true. Thus a monk so endowed is endowed with the highest determination for truth, for this — Nirvana, the undeceptive — is the highest noble truth.
****
Kind regards
;D
If one reads the introduction in Lotus sutra, it says 12000 arhats joined Guatam Buddha at Eagle peak.
And later in chapter 3 (Similie and Parable) only 1200 were left who accepted the Greater vehicle inspite of Guatam Budha presence.
The reason was that the experience of Emptiness is extremely wonderful in the sense you are totally inside and outside at peace. Imagine even your sub- sub-- consciousness is empty. Wisdom of Emptiness has gone in so deep that seeing , percieving and not perceiving is not happening.
The arhats who rejected Greater Vehicle have been seeing the difference between themselves and Guatam Buddha. Guatam had respect, comfort in his living style. His Knowledge was limitless yet these arhats rejected the temptation of becoming a Buddha.
Thank you for the response riju
may I ask two questions?
I hope you do not mind...firstly during experiences of emptiness do you have corresponding experience of physical phenomena/feelings?
Do you use a translation of the lotus sutra? and if you do which one?
really I asked three questions....but hey.
with thanks
:hands:
Do you use a translation of the lotus sutra? and if you do which one?
riju uses this translation of the lotus sutra:
http://nichiren.info/buddhism/lotussutra/
firstly during experiences of emptiness do you have corresponding experience of physical phenomena/feelings?
This may be different for different people in different situations. Physical senses and feelings are at high alert.
Sometimes walking feels like floating. Sound of horn of a car/truck is very pecular due to sensivity of ear to different sound frequencies emitting from a single horn. Infact all the conscious and sub-conscious senses are more awake.
Not so.
I feel we are saying the same thing in different words.I agree with what you have mailed above.
Nirvana...is the experience of emptiness at Budhic plane.
Arhat ... is the experience of emptiness at human plane.
Nothingness....can be experienced at many sub-planes.
There are 31 lokas and hence 31 different stages of Arhats.
Absolute Emptiness is like a God as explained earlier.
I feel we are saying the same thing in different words. Absolute Emptiness is like a God as explained earlier.
not so
nothingness is not emptiness
the mind of emptiness sees mere elements (rather than 'God')
emptiness is a 'characteristic' of things rather than the 'creator' & 'destroyer' of things
Dear riju,
Please give me a right advice either by finding flaw(defect) in my simple logic or you all surrender to my simple logic.
There is no logic and certainly nothing simple about what is being said in this thread.
One should withdraw from existence to a lonely place when suffering becomes unbearable and then practice "I am not", which by logic is a bigger fact. In that state collect inflows (power) and again come back to people,life, existence and grow to Buddhahood.
To me this looks beautiful, correct and simple method until some one finds a mistake in this logic.
The Buddha did not teach the practice of "I am not" during times of unbearable suffering as you describe it. Instead, the teachings consistently negate any notion of ego. The purpose of recognizing that all things are empty of self is not so that a person can re-enter everyday life rejuvenated with a stronger sense of selfhood. Nor is the purpose to diminish a person's confidence or ability to live invigorated. "I am not" is not a method for re-charging oneself. Emptiness is intended to demonstrate that there is nothing that can be called stable, enduring, or solid, thus enabling a person to cease grasping after imagined things whose qualities they desire but cannot have.
When practicing "I am", i live in a big family, socialise with a lot of friends, run a big business with a lot of employees as a head.
When I feel the stress, I withdraw to "I am not", leaving everything to my respective successors and practice meditation in a lonely place
That's fine, but it was not taught by the Buddha in any of the suttas of the Theravada tradition, nor in any of the various Mahayana sutras (Lotus, Heart, Diamond, etc.), so it is pointless to continue insisting that this "I am and I am not" has been taught by the Buddha.
"I am" is required to create the Universe and "I am" , "I am not" is the main mantra of heart sutra which expands the lotus sutra.
The Buddha did not speak of creating the universe as such. "I am" is not Creation in the same sense that it would be in the Advaita Vedantist tradition, where "ekoham bahusyam" (I am one, let me become many) and "aham asmi" (I am) are what literally create all of existence. Try not to confuse the teachings of the Upanishads with those of the suttas and sutras.
After experience of Emptiness one goes thro a Blank (gap). This experience is very vivid and sharp and never to be forgotten.
This is not how the Buddha taught the experience of emptiness. Emptiness is not blankness, nothingness, or non-existence. The emptiness described in the suttas and sutras is not as you claim it is.
Abhaya
Dear riju,
Today I searched from my old heap of papers. I could not find the reference for you. I had at a certain stage donated a big heap of sutras (printed from internet), as i thought i will not require them.
May be it was sutra with a different name . One line reverbates in my mind from old memories. It is
" Shubti, I have 32 points and then he says I do not have 32 points.
It was like "have" and "Not have"
"I am " and then immediately "I am not". It goes on like this for a full page.
Any how what ever the sutra, my explanation is very important for me for "I am" and "I am not"
This is in reference to the Diamond Sutra, where the reification performed via the use of language is expounded upon. Here, "I am" refers to the conventional and "I am not" refers to the absolute. The lesson is that reification of concepts is to be avoided. Simply because the word "I" is used, that does not mean there is an ultimate self - atman, paramatman, brahman, or otherwise.
What I meant was that one has to live a full life. Have sons, daughters, grandchildern , relatives, friends, employees etc, etc, and if one is positve with them, his kingdom will grow faster. This is the basic lesson I got from understanding of Lotus sutra. When one abides in emptiness one knows and thinks that "I am not". All is emptiness.
It requires a force of ego "I am" to break this state and expand and create ones universe.
Living a full life has nothing to do with "I am" and "I am not" or with emptiness. Knowing and abiding in emptiness does not result in the thought that all things are without meaning. Emptiness is not a method for defeat of all purpose. The Buddha and later commentators like Nagarjuna make it clear that emptiness has nothing to do with the extreme of absolute non-existence. They are explicit in saying that emptiness is not a nihilistic teaching. Furthermore, the force of ego, "I am", is not necessary to overcome anything. This is because emptiness does not subtract from life in any annihilationist sense nor add to life in any eternalistic sense. There is no ultimate emptiness to create all of existence and the universe, nor any destructive emptiness to annihilate anything. Your entire argument is built upon the very extremes that the Buddha rejected.
It is Diamond sutra ..chapter 17 , Name of the chapter...ULTIMATELY THERE IS NO SELF
When the Diamond Sutra uses phrases such as "I am" and "I am not", it demonstrates that there is a conventional reality in which self-referential language is necessary, but no absolute notion of Self that persists and exists eternally. There is no need to reify the conventional self into an absolute Self.
Abhaya
Moderator's Note:
The Beginners Forum's aim is just to give general information and guidelines about basic Buddhist teachings to people exploring Buddhism.
Opinions and personal ideas can be discussed in the other forums on the website.
The thread has been moved to the Mahayana/Vajrayana Forum to keep it open to debate and discussion.
:peace:
not so
nothingness is not emptiness
the mind of emptiness sees mere elements (rather than 'God')
emptiness is a 'characteristic' of things rather than the 'creator' & 'destroyer' of things
Element,
I would like you to segregate Buddha's teaching in following four sections.
1. Teachings for householder layman
2. Teachings for Monk layman
And after one has experienced Emptiness/Nothingness/I am not/ (No self)
3. Teachings for householer (Bhoddhisattva)
4. Teachings for Monk (Pratyakabuddha}
Otherwise there will be clash of Buddha's teachings at some discussions.Probably by doing this we can have rational discussion.
Guatam Buddha says in Lotus sutra that his earlier teachings were not FALSE but were given as expedient means. It requires meditation on your part to understand His words.
Dear riju,
Abhaya,
1)When I read part of Diomond sutra (thanks to you), I could understand your
confusion due to different words used by me.
I had mastered only Lotus sutra,and I DO NOT require any other sutra for my
purpose of life. But I read small part of Diomond sutra for your sake. If you
Substitute SELF for "I am"
and substitue NO SELF for "I am not", may be your confusion will get cleared.
2) Whole of Lotus sutra is about Buddhas making different universes. And as a
Bhoddisattva they enlarge their universe with "Self". and take care of their Wisdom
by "No self " .
Words
Would some of you like to suggest common words for different discussions that occur on this forum.
I have started the process by writing below. Many new words can come.
There is ...
Universal Emptiness.......Like a God
Indivitual Emptiness.......Nothingness
Loka Emptiness.............Arhat/ Nirvana
self
No self
I am
I am not
Self/ i am......creates, builds, enlarges wisdom, logic, memory etc
No self/ i am not.......contributes to Emptiness
freakpower70
09 Jul 12, 07:43
I wouldn't say universal emptiness is like a god as that has always implied an idea of a personal consciousness (that being gods) to me. Every discription I have heard of god no matter how abstract has always endowed that figure with a kind of consciousness which I think runs against the buddhist idea of emptiness or voidness.
I wouldn't say universal emptiness is like a god as that has always implied an idea of a personal consciousness (that being gods) to me. Every discription I have heard of god no matter how abstract has always endowed that figure with a kind of consciousness which I think runs against the buddhist idea of emptiness or voidness.
As you like,
As far as I am concerned I have named it Absolute Emptiness and I have written earlier 3 articles on "Nothing Exists" forum. Using of God is also done in those articles.
Self/ i am......creates, builds, enlarges wisdom, logic, memory etc
No self/ i am not.......contributes to Emptiness
not so
the mind creates, builds, enlarges wisdom, logic, memory, etc
one goal of buddhism is to understand the nature of the 'self' creation, hallucination & superstition
not so
the mind creates, builds, enlarges wisdom, logic, memory, etc
one goal of buddhism is to understand the nature of the 'self' creation, hallucination & superstition
why are hallucination and superstition words coming to your mind.
Self/ i am......creates, builds, enlarges wisdom, logic, memory etc
No self/ i am not.......contributes to Emptiness
in buddhism, "i am" is also emptiness
in other words, "i am" is "not-I-am"; the mental creation of "self" is "not-self"
if the mind, the Dhamma-Eye, has not seen 'i am is not i am', mind has not seen buddhism
everything is emptiness, including 'i am'
buddha taught "I am" is a fabrication
Buddha & Heart Sutra explain body, feeling, perception, fabrication & consciousness are empty
"I am" is a fabrication therefore "I am" is emptiness
Buddha said:
he assumes things to be 'self'. That assumption [superstition] is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.
Parileyyaka Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.081.than.html)
When Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara practised the deep Prajnaparamita, he saw that the five skandhas were empty; thus he overcame all ills and suffering.
O Sariputra! Form does not differ from the void, and the void does not differ from the form. Form is the void, and the void is form. The same is true for feelings, perceptions, fabrications and consciousness.
Heart Sutra (http://www.usashaolintemple.org/chanbuddhism-heartsutratranslation/)
in buddhism, "i am" is also emptiness
I want a direct answers from you on following questions.
1. What is your position on Lotus Sutra?
2. Why Buddha rejects the path of Arhat?
3. Why does Buddha mention duration of making, working and dissolution of the Universe that each Buddha has done before going to Nirvan.?
4. Why do the words "self" and "No self " come in the consequent sentences of Diamond sutra.?
5. Does not making of universes require form, feelings, perception etc.?
Normal human being is entrenched in "Self " and the ultimate truth is "No self "
When "Self " goes then "No self " also goes. And what remains is EXISTENCE.
Guatam Buddha teaches you first to get away from "Self ". "No self " also is reflection of "Self ". He wants you to get away from "NO self " also and then what appears is LOTUS SUTRA / EXISTENCE.
In our deepest consciousness "Self " in entrenched.
Unless one meditates and experiences "NO Self " state one will remain confused. THERE IS NO WAY OUT. Learning of sutras only strengthens "Self ". Guatam Buddha led the monks for 20 years to reach a state of "NO self ". It is not easy. Mahyana sutras came after 20 years.
A bhoddhisattva on the path swings thro " Self " and "No self " state and Diamond and other sutras are then brought forward by Guatam Buddha only for those bhoddistavas.
Self , No self, preceptions, feelings, consciousness,form will come out of void and thro cause and effect produce existence and then disappear in void.
Bhuddhas took out the Existence from the clutches of void and used Wisdom as the weapon. If one gets stuck at "Self " and "No self ", how can one progress towards buddhahood via bhodisattva.
Dear riju,
Abhaya,
1)When I read part of Diomond sutra (thanks to you), I could understand your
confusion due to different words used by me.
I had mastered only Lotus sutra,and I DO NOT require any other sutra for my
purpose of life. But I read small part of Diomond sutra for your sake. If you
Substitute SELF for "I am"
and substitue NO SELF for "I am not", may be your confusion will get cleared.
2) Whole of Lotus sutra is about Buddhas making different universes. And as a
Bhoddisattva they enlarge their universe with "Self". and take care of their Wisdom
by "No self " .
1) Based on your views expressed on this forum, it appears that your understanding of the Lotus Sutra is extremely lacking and could only benefit from speaking with a Buddhist teacher.
2) In the Lotus Sutra, creation of universes is not the work of Buddhas. Again, your understanding of the Lotus Sutra is incomplete and misguided, and all that can be suggested is that you speak with a teacher who can help you better understand the flaws in your logic.
Words
Would some of you like to suggest common words for different discussions that occur on this forum.
I have started the process by writing below. Many new words can come.
There is ...
Universal Emptiness.......Like a God
Indivitual Emptiness.......Nothingness
Loka Emptiness.............Arhat/ Nirvana
self
No self
I am
I am not
Self/ i am......creates, builds, enlarges wisdom, logic, memory etc
No self/ i am not.......contributes to Emptiness
Emptiness, as has been repeated to you several times, has no qualities comparable to a God. If this continues to be your view in spite of the feedback you've gotten here demonstrating that your understanding is not in line with the Buddha's teachings, you may be better suited to the teachings of Advaita Vedanta, which are much more in line with your interpretation of existence.
The Buddha taught:
Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta (MN 140)
'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html
Yavakalapi Sutta (SN 35.207)
"'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'...
Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. Therefore, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will dwell with an awareness free of construings.'
"'I am' is a perturbation. 'I am this' is a perturbation. 'I shall be' is a perturbation. 'I shall not be'...
Perturbation is a disease, perturbation is a cancer, perturbation is an arrow. Therefore, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will dwell with an awareness free of perturbations.'
"'I am' is a wavering. 'I am this' is a wavering. 'I shall be' is a wavering. 'I shall not be'...
Wavering is a disease, wavering is a cancer, wavering is an arrow. Therefore, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will dwell with an awareness free of waverings.'
"'I am' is a objectification. 'I am this' is a objectification. 'I shall be' is a objectification. 'I shall not be'...
Objectification is a disease, objectification is a cancer, objectification is an arrow. Therefore, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will dwell with an awareness free of objectifications.'
"'I am' is an act of conceit. 'I am this' is an act of conceit. 'I shall be' is an act of conceit. 'I shall not be'...
An act of conceit is a disease, an act of conceit is a cancer, an act of conceit is an arrow. Therefore, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will dwell with an awareness free of acts of conceit.'"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.207.than.html
Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2)
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."
"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html
Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (MN 38)
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound'?"
"No, lord."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html
Compare this to Advaita Vedanta, which maintains:
Chandogya Upanishad
"In the beginning, my dear, this [universe] was Being (Sat) alone, one only without a second. Some say that in the beginning this was non-being (asat) alone, one only without a second; and from that non-being, being was born." (6.2.1)
Now, that which is the subtle essence - in it all that exists has its self. That is the True. That is the Self. That thou art, Svetaketu. (6.8.7)
http://www.yogananda.com.au/upa/Chandogya_Upanishad.html
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
Originally, there was nothing. Death was enveloping everything. That is all the meaning, literally, of this sentence. In the beginning of things, what was there? Nothing was there. There was a devouring, all-consuming death principle, as it were; nothing else can we conceive. In the Veda, also, there is this very same point reflected in the Nāsadīya Sūkta, which proclaims that, in the beginning, there was neither existence, nor non-existence.
[...]
Therefore, in the condition of non-objectivity which is the origin of things, the cosmic beginning of things, where the distinction between the seer and the seen was not marked, where the one commingled with the other, where one entered the other, where the two could not be distinguished, for reasons obvious, what was there? Nothing was there!
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_I-02.html
It appears that what you're saying is consistent with the Upanishads, not with the sutras or suttas.
Abhaya
Dear riju,
Self , No self, preceptions, feelings, consciousness,form will come out of void and thro cause and effect produce existence and then disappear in void.
This is not what the Heart Sutra says. Not even close. Uninformed people have repeatedly mistaken the Heart Sutra for a metaphysical treatise espousing a nihilistic doctrine, which is as far from the truth as one can get. The voidness spoken of by the Heart Sutra is emptiness, which refers to emptiness of self or anything pertaining to self. Confusion arises when people, falsely thinking they understand the Heart Sutra, suggest that voidness is the antonym of form. Rupa and sunyata are anything but opposites. It is not as if emptiness refers to thin air while form refers to something that occupies space. Emptiness is not the originator, creator, or source of all things. It is a quality of all things, as all things are empty of (without) self-nature.
prajñāpāramita-hṛdayam sūtra
ārya-avalokiteśvaro bodhisattvo gambhīrāṃ prajñāpāramitā caryāṃ caramāṇo vyavalokayati sma: panca-skandhās tāṃś ca svābhava śūnyān paśyati sma.
http://www.visiblemantra.org/heartsutra.html
Panca-skandhās refers to the five aggregates, while svābhava śūnyān refers to being empty (śūnyā) of self-nature (svābhava).
Form is one of the five aggregates, the others being feelings, perceptions, impulses/thought formations/mental fabrications (variously translated), and consciousness. In the Nikayas, the Buddha says they are all empty of self or anything pertaining to self. In the Heart Sutra, the same is said. All of the aggregates are empty of (lack) self.
Abhaya
Riju it seems to me here that we all agree that your understanding of emptiness is not the same as taught in any of the sutras and does not align with the Tathagatha’s teachings.
Riju why should one practice your understanding of emptiness and how does it benefit them?
And what remains is EXISTENCE.
what remains are five impermanent aggregates
buddha did not teach 'existence' remains. in fact, buddha taught 'existence' is wrong view
The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence or to non-existence. But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is, 'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply.
SN 12.15 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html)
2. Why Buddha rejects the path of Arhat?
Buddha called himself an Arhat, honored his Arhat monks & does not reject the path of Arhat
Monks, there is one person whose arising in the world is for the welfare of the multitude, for the happiness of the multitude, who comes out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare and happiness of devas and humans. Who is that one person? It is the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One. This is that one person.
Monks, there is one person arising in the world who is unique, without a peer, without counterpart, incomparable, unequalled, matchless, unrivalled, the best of humans. Who is that one person? It is the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One. This is that one person.
http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh155-p.html#S6
Monks, among all living beings—be they footless or two-footed, with four feet or many feet, with form or formless, percipient, non-percipient or neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient —the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, is reckoned the best of them all. Those who have faith in the Buddha have faith in the best; and for those who have faith in the best, the best result will be theirs.
http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh155-p.html#S48
The Buddha taught:
Compare this to Advaita Vedanta, which maintains:
It appears that what you're saying is consistent with the Upanishads, not with the sutras or suttas.
:bow:
Dear riju,
1) Based on your views expressed on this forum, it appears that your understanding of the Lotus Sutra is extremely lacking and could only benefit from speaking with a Buddhist teacher.
No comments. But I am very happy with you because of your effort of extracting of Buddha sayings which gave support to my sayings. Those Buddha saying come down later in this reply of yours.
2) In the Lotus Sutra, creation of universes is not the work of Buddhas. Again, your understanding of the Lotus Sutra is incomplete and misguided, and all that can be suggested is that you speak with a teacher who can help you better understand the flaws in your logic.
TEACHER ? thank you. Without a teacher no one can go forward. And I have moved forward.
Major part of Lotus sutra is about creation of universes. The book is there, read it. You are very intelligent and still you are denying an obvious statement. Are you goading me to come out with some secrets? In that case come out with clear questions.
Emptiness, as has been repeated to you several times, has no qualities comparable to a God. If this continues to be your view in spite of the feedback you've gotten here demonstrating that your understanding is not in line with the Buddha's teachings, you may be better suited to the teachings of Advaita Vedanta, which are much more in line with your interpretation of existence.
I have no view on God. I wrote in "Nothing exists" that some understand Emptiness as God. Please read back.
The Buddha taught:
Wonderful sayings of Buddha. Do not they support my writings?
[
Compare this to Advaita Vedanta, which maintains:
It appears that what you're saying is consistent with the Upanishads, not with the sutras or suttas.
Abhaya
No, my thinkings are too much away from Advaita Vedanta or Upnishads
Buddha called himself an Arhat, honored his Arhat monks & does not reject the path of Arhat
Tathagata, the Arahant is Buddha Himself. Arhats of Lotus sutra are the monks whom Buddha had trained for 20 years.
Dear riju,
This is not what the Heart Sutra says. Not even close. Uninformed people have repeatedly mistaken the Heart Sutra for a metaphysical treatise espousing a nihilistic doctrine, which is as far from the truth as one can get. The voidness spoken of by the Heart Sutra is emptiness, which refers to emptiness of self or anything pertaining to self. Confusion arises when people, falsely thinking they understand the Heart Sutra, suggest that voidness is the antonym of form. Rupa and sunyata are anything but opposites. It is not as if emptiness refers to thin air while form refers to something that occupies space. Emptiness is not the originator, creator, or source of all things. It is a quality of all things, as all things are empty of (without) self-nature.
Panca-skandhās refers to the five aggregates, while svābhava śūnyān refers to being empty (śūnyā) of self-nature (svābhava).
Form is one of the five aggregates, the others being feelings, perceptions, impulses/thought formations/mental fabrications (variously translated), and consciousness. In the Nikayas, the Buddha says they are all empty of self or anything pertaining to self. In the Heart Sutra, the same is said. All of the aggregates are empty of (lack) self.
Abhaya
What i wrote were my words. I have not read Heart sutra.
The Thinker
10 Jul 12, 03:31
In my view you are wrong again riju. where du you have this idea from?
The thinker
Riju it seems to me here that we all agree that your understanding of emptiness is not the same as taught in any of the sutras and does not align with the Tathagatha’s teachings.
Riju why should one practice your understanding of emptiness and how does it benefit them?
Anata,
What can I say? thanks for taking interest.
In my view you are wrong again riju. where du you have this idea from?
The thinker
Why do your opinions make me smile and send you a lot of "Happy" waves to you?
The Thinker
10 Jul 12, 03:46
Maybe you smile because you dont know how to answer my questions riju?
The thinker
Originally Posted by anata
Riju it seems to me here that we all agree that your understanding of emptiness is not the same as taught in any of the sutras and does not align with the Tathagatha’s teachings.
Riju why should one practice your understanding of emptiness and how does it benefit them?
Anata,
posted by riju
What can I say? thanks for taking interest.
Do not say you have nothing to say because to me, that mean you don't know what you are talking about and you are just saying random things to shake everyone's mind. Lets learn something together instead of wasting our effort in arguments that gets us nowhere.
posted by riju
Do not say you have nothing to say because to me, that mean you don't know what you are talking about and you are just saying random things to shake everyone's mind. Lets learn something together instead of wasting our effort in arguments that gets us nowhere.
I am with you. I am thinking as how to write on "Why meditation is necessary". By tomorrow that will be on line
I gift with you a writing on "why meditation and not studying is the only solution".
study is not the solution when the written teachings are not understood
the written teachings are not understood when meditation does not bring the same insight as Buddha
the written teachings are an accurate representation of the Buddha's insight
it is important to be aware not all meditation and all meditators bring the same results
:meditate:
study is not the solution when the written teachings are not understood
the written teachings are not understood when meditation does not bring the same insight as Buddha
the written teachings are an accurate representation of the Buddha's insight
it is important to be aware not all meditation and all meditators bring the same results
:meditate:
It is also important to be aware that not all meditation insights are 'authentic.' Some are constructs of your own mind/brain, and some are ideas from others (like Mara.)
Not having an opinion on this thread either way, just adding what I thought to be an important point to Element's list of points, and a chance to use :meditate: in my post.
posted by riju
I am with you. I am thinking as how to write on "Why meditation is necessary". By tomorrow that will be on line
There are many types of meditations that are being practice in many different point of views. I am waiting to see why your way of meditation is necessary to practice by all.
Dear riju,
No comments. But I am very happy with you because of your effort of extracting of Buddha sayings which gave support to my sayings. Those Buddha saying come down later in this reply of yours.
None of the Buddha's statements support your points. The "simple logic" you expressed in the first post of this thread and in the discussion that followed frankly makes no sense whatsoever.
TEACHER ? thank you. Without a teacher no one can go forward. And I have moved forward.
Major part of Lotus sutra is about creation of universes. The book is there, read it. You are very intelligent and still you are denying an obvious statement. Are you goading me to come out with some secrets? In that case come out with clear questions.
The Lotus Sutra is not as you interpret it. There is no creation of universes anywhere in the Lotus Sutra. No teaching on the formation of galaxies or the cosmos. None of it. You might be mistaking the passages on the light emitted by the Buddha for some act of creation. The Lotus Sutra refers to illumination of universes, worlds, beings - not creation of them.
Lotus Sutra: Chapter 7
The Buddha announced to the monks: "When the Buddha Great Universal Wisdom Excellence attained anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, five hundred ten thousand million Buddha worlds in each of the ten directions trembled and shook in six different ways. The dark and secluded places within those lands, where the light of the sun and moon is never able to penetrate, were able to see one another, and they all exclaimed, saying, 'How is it that living beings have suddenly come into existence in this place?'
"Also the palaces of the various heavenly beings in those lands and the Brahma palaces trembled and shook in six different ways and a great light shone everywhere, completely filling the worlds and surpassing the light of the heavens. At that time in five hundred ten thousand million lands in the eastern direction the Brahma palaces shone with the brilliant light that was twice its ordinary brightness, and the Brahma kings each thought to himself. Now the brilliance of the palace is greater than ever in the past. What can be the cause of this phenomenon?
"At that time the Brahma kings visited one another to discuss this matter. Among them was a great Brahma king named Save All who, on behalf of the multitude of Brahma kings, spoke these verses, saying:
Our palaces have a brilliance
never known in the past.
What is the cause of this?
Each of us seeks an answer.
Is it because of the birth of some heavenly being of great virtue,
or because the Buddha has appeared in this world
that this great light
shines everywhere in the ten directions?
http://nichiren.info/buddhism/lotussutra/text/chap07.html
The light of the Buddha represents illumination - bringing to light that which was previously not seen or understood. The interpretation that somehow universes are created has nothing to do with the Lotus Sutra or any of the Buddha's teachings.
I have no view on God. I wrote in "Nothing exists" that some understand Emptiness as God. Please read back.
Then why did you suggest that emptiness is like a God? That certainly reflects some type of view about God as a creator. Emptiness has been wrongly equated with God and creation time and time again in your posts. The Lotus Sutra did not teach such. The Heart Sutra did not teach such. The Diamond Sutra did not teach such. The Buddha did not teach such.
Wonderful sayings of Buddha. Do not they support my writings?
No. In fact, they are in stark contradistinction.
Abhaya
Dear riju,
The Lotus Sutra is not as you interpret it. There is no creation of universes anywhere in the Lotus Sutra. No teaching on the formation of galaxies or the cosmos. None of it. You might be mistaking the passages on the light emitted by the Buddha for some act of creation. The Lotus Sutra refers to illumination of universes, worlds, beings - not creation of them.
In response from Lotus sutra
His land will be level and smooth, the ground made of crystal, adorned with jeweled trees, with ropes of gold to mark the boundaries of the roads. Wonderful flowers will cover the ground, everywhere will be pure and clean, and all who see it will rejoice. The four evil paths of existence, hell and the realms of hungry spirits, beasts and asuras, will not exist there. There will be many heavenly and human beings, and multitudes of voice-hearers and bodhisattvas in innumerable tens of thousands of millions will adorn the land. That Buddha's life span will be twelve small kalpas, his Correct Law will endure in the world for twenty small kalpas, and his Counterfeit Law will endure in the world for twenty small kalpas."
This Buddha will have thousand-millionfold worlds equal in number to Ganges sands as his Buddha land. The ground will be made of the seven treasures and level as the palm of a hand, without hills or ridges, ravines or gullies. The land will be filled with terraces and towers made of the seven treasures, and the heavenly palaces will be situated close by in the sky, so that human and heavenly beings can communicate and be within sight of each other. There will be no evil paths of existence there, nor will there be any women. All living beings will be born through transformation and will be without lewd desires. They will gain great transcendental powers, their bodies will emit a bright glow, and they will be able to fly at will. They will be firm in intent and thought, diligent and wise, and all alike will be adorned with golden color and the thirty-two features. All the living beings in that land will regularly take two kinds of food, one being the food of Dharma joy, the other the food of meditation delight. There will be immeasurable asamkhyas, thousands, ten thousands, millions of nayutas of bodhisattvas there, who will gain great transcendental powers and the four unlimited kinds of knowledge, and will be skilled and capable in teaching and converting the different varieties of living beings. The number of voice-hearers will be beyond the power of calculation or reckoning to determine. All will be fully endowed with the six transcendental powers, the three understandings, and the eight emancipations.
"This Buddha land will thus possess measureless blessings of this kind that will adorn and complete it. The kalpa will be named Treasure Bright and the land named Good and Pure. The Buddha's life span will be immeasurable asamkhya kalpas, his Law will endure for a very long time, and after the Buddha has passed into extinction, towers adorned with the seven treasures will be erected to him throughout the entire land."
I am sending two of the universes that Buddha described. More than 30 different universes have been thus described
Abhaya
The second universe is so facisinating ...
It is going to be created by Purna Maitrayanputra in chapter 8.
Their will be land and heavenly palaces and their will be communication with them.
It is not only death, old age, sickness or dukkha which Buddhas are going to transcend
Dear riju,
Your quotes from the Lotus Sutra are in reference to Sukhāvatī, the Pure Land. They are not in reference to the creation of universes. Once again, there is no mention of creation, whether by the Buddha or by emptiness, in any of the sources you cite. Your entire argument is flawed.
Abhaya
Dear riju,
Your quotes from the Lotus Sutra are in reference to Sukhāvatī, the Pure Land. They are not in reference to the creation of universes. Once again, there is no mention of creation, whether by the Buddha or by emptiness, in any of the sources you cite. Your entire argument is flawed.
Abhaya
ok, you win
As most of the active members seem to disagree with me, should we not close down this thread?
It was interesting as far as I am concerned.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.