Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
I'm curious what people think the correct course of action would have been in that story? Sincere question.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
Imagine: There are 500 able-bodied, able-minded men, and the best things they can think of when threatened with one man attempting to kill them by what appears to be no more than a knife is, a) helplessly stand there and look on as they are being slaughtered one by one, and, b) join forces and kill the man in anger.aflatun wrote:I'm curious what people think the correct course of action would have been in that story? Sincere question.
A specific scenario like that could occur only in, say, the military, a prison, or a cult. Ie. a scenario that a practicing Buddhist is not exactly likely to encounter, so the issue is mostly moot. Other life scenarios are more intricate and so require a more detailed analysis.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
The point is that the protagonist in the Jataka tales is still an unelightened being.Santi253 wrote:In order to violate a precept in the name of skillful means, one must already have a high enough level of enlightenment as to know for certain that the outcome will be the most positive, compassionate possible outcome to a given situation.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
If the whole idea is to prevent greater harm, imagine the harm that will result from such exceptions and how it can be misused by possibly deranged people and the slippery slope it can lead to, only then you will be able to see that "literalists" have a point.Santi253 wrote:In order to violate a precept in the name of skillful means, one must already have a high enough level of enlightenment as to know for certain that the outcome will be the most positive, compassionate possible outcome to a given situation.Bundokji wrote: I hope you see the danger in what you are preaching here. Even though the word "skillful" is being used, i cant see anything praiseworthy in what you quoted.
There are good reasons why rules has to be applied equally on everyone, and i would add that i would feel more sympathy towards a beginner who break the rules than an advanced practitioner. Have you ever thought why monks adhere to a much more difficult rules than lay people?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
Well of course! Having a y chromosome myself, my initial reaction was also to not only reject the 'rules' of the story but to wonder why the Bodhisatva wouldn't choose to pull a batman and pummel the bandit into submission and then keep him restrained until the ship reached safety. But your implied solution is far more elegant and I like it betterbinocular wrote:Imagine: There are 500 able-bodied, able-minded men, and the best things they can think of when threatened with one man attempting to kill them by what appears to be no more than a knife is, a) helplessly stand there and look on as they are being slaughtered one by one, and, b) join forces and kill the man in anger.aflatun wrote:I'm curious what people think the correct course of action would have been in that story? Sincere question.
A specific scenario like that could occur only in, say, the military, a prison, or a cult. Ie. a scenario that a practicing Buddhist is not exactly likely to encounter, so the issue is mostly moot. Other life scenarios are more intricate and so require a more detailed analysis.
But I think what the myth is getting at (I don't call it a myth to denigrate it, I just mean it seems to present itself as an imagistic story whose purpose is to illustrate ostensibly timeless principles), is if there were a situation in which those were the only options, what would be the most virtuous course of action?
Last edited by aflatun on Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
-
- Posts: 1019
- Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
Actually it is through the Eightfold Noble Path not a Buddhist Path that Nibbana is attained, there is one Eightfold Noble Path and there are many bluntly put "fake Buddhisms".David N. Snyder wrote: Buddhism holds that anyone can get to heaven leading a moral life and precepts from any religion, but the ultimate Nibbana is through the Buddhist path.
Actually Right View is precursor to the Eightfold Noble Path. If the Summit is the analogy for Nibbana or Stream Entry, then certainly there is no reaching the Summit without Right View as a prerequisite.David N. Snyder wrote:Anyone from any Buddhist tradition can make it to the summit, but once there, any wrong views will immediately vanish (whatever those might be; any Mahayana or any Theravada wrong views).
Poll options are bad, there should be a "i dont think so/i doubt it" or "i think so".Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions.
[1] "Of those, right view is the forerunner.
Last edited by User156079 on Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
Is the idea of compassion (the kind the buddha talked about) something that can be applied to actions?....as in "what is the most compassionate action......"....or is it something that can only rightly be applied to individuals or even only to an individuals inner mechanizations? I think that the buddha had compassion but it has not much to do with any actions he undertook.....but I'm not sure......
chownah
chownah
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
I understand your concerns with my choice of words, and share it. I've edited my words to reflect your objection, counselor chownahchownah wrote:Is the idea of compassion (the kind the buddha talked about) something that can be applied to actions?....as in "what is the most compassionate action......"....or is it something that can only rightly be applied to individuals or even only to an individuals inner mechanizations? I think that the buddha had compassion but it has not much to do with any actions he undertook.....but I'm not sure......
chownah
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
I tend to agree. The Buddha declared clearly what we should avoid (the precepts) and he did not make exceptions through imaginary stories because he is compassionate. What makes teachings"timeless" is clarity because the teachings is for the masses while the practice and moral choices is for the individual to make, and it is the individual who will live with consequences of his actions/choices. Once you start making exceptions to be more inclusive or compassionate, you open the door for Mara to justify whims and desires.chownah wrote:Is the idea of compassion (the kind the buddha talked about) something that can be applied to actions?....as in "what is the most compassionate action......"....or is it something that can only rightly be applied to individuals or even only to an individuals inner mechanizations? I think that the buddha had compassion but it has not much to do with any actions he undertook.....but I'm not sure......
chownah
We can always choose not to follow the precepts, but to declare that the Buddha taught this would be lying.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17192
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
Correct, look at what G.W. Bush did in Iraq. He was certain there were WMD and of course there were none. ISIL formed and other disasters because of Bush's incompetence.Bundokji wrote: If the whole idea is to prevent greater harm, imagine the harm that will result from such exceptions and how it can be misused by possibly deranged people and the slippery slope it can lead to, only then you will be able to see that "literalists" have a point.
However, in other circumstances there have been genocidal killings in progress, actually going on and then the choices become difficult and real.
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
Acknowledging uncertainty and at the same time not abandoning clarity is a challenge we all face.David N. Snyder wrote:Correct, look at what G.W. Bush did in Iraq. He was certain there were WMD and of course there were none. ISIL formed and other disasters because of Bush's incompetence.Bundokji wrote: If the whole idea is to prevent greater harm, imagine the harm that will result from such exceptions and how it can be misused by possibly deranged people and the slippery slope it can lead to, only then you will be able to see that "literalists" have a point.
However, in other circumstances there have been genocidal killings in progress, actually going on and then the choices become difficult and real.
By the way, yesterday i came across your article "closer to truth" and i enjoyed reading it. Maybe the best way to achieve clarity is through simplicity, things does not have to be complicated in order to be true. The way you presented the ideas were simple and clear without affecting the depth of the message.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
- BasementBuddhist
- Posts: 305
- Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:03 pm
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
I used to believe that one should break the precepts to be compassionate, but after reading the nikayas, I can understand why the Buddha did not permit this. If the life of your 'friend' and your 'enemy' are both simply dependently Arisen, based on it's causes and conditions, then by their nature they are inherently the same. Their worth doesn't change, simply their tendencies. The only reason we would kill an enemy to save an friend, or even one stranger to save another stranger, is because of our own tendencies and perceptions. One is "good" one is "bad". This is attachment. Harming something to help something is not compassion. It is choosing one thing over another and deliberately hurting something so that the thing we like is better off. This is the very definition of attachment.
Compassion is seeing to someones suffering without judgement and trying to help. If you act full of emotion and judgement to save someone in the name of what is right, in the name of the Dhamma, of compassion, is this dispassionate? Is this free of clinging? Is this seeing things how they are? Or is this seeing something in a special way, valuing it, and acting to save what you value?
If one man was about to kill another, I would tell the second man about his danger, and then I would try to hide him not because he is better, but because he is bound to be suffering because of the situation, and I would try to take him out of it.. If the first man found and killed him, I would see to the first mans wounds! He is now the one suffering! The other man is dead. He feels nothing now. The first man could die. I might ask him why he killed the other man and I might not. If he killed me then so be it.
If you look at these things with dispassion, seeing them as they are, then you must see that the first man is the same as the second man, and both men the same as yourself. Same as the air they breathe and the grass they walk on. Choosing one over another is attachment. Clinging. One must see how things are and act in THESE circumstances, not the circumstances that passion and feeling and clinging say are there. This is the way to equanimity and peace.
If you were starving and killed a man to save your family from hunger, they would view this as compassionate. You saved them. The dead man's family would see this as a most vile sin and would suffer. You cannot look through the lens of feeling. You have to see suffering with wisdom and make choices to end that suffering based on how things ARE not how clinging makes them look.
Compassion is seeing to someones suffering without judgement and trying to help. If you act full of emotion and judgement to save someone in the name of what is right, in the name of the Dhamma, of compassion, is this dispassionate? Is this free of clinging? Is this seeing things how they are? Or is this seeing something in a special way, valuing it, and acting to save what you value?
If one man was about to kill another, I would tell the second man about his danger, and then I would try to hide him not because he is better, but because he is bound to be suffering because of the situation, and I would try to take him out of it.. If the first man found and killed him, I would see to the first mans wounds! He is now the one suffering! The other man is dead. He feels nothing now. The first man could die. I might ask him why he killed the other man and I might not. If he killed me then so be it.
If you look at these things with dispassion, seeing them as they are, then you must see that the first man is the same as the second man, and both men the same as yourself. Same as the air they breathe and the grass they walk on. Choosing one over another is attachment. Clinging. One must see how things are and act in THESE circumstances, not the circumstances that passion and feeling and clinging say are there. This is the way to equanimity and peace.
If you were starving and killed a man to save your family from hunger, they would view this as compassionate. You saved them. The dead man's family would see this as a most vile sin and would suffer. You cannot look through the lens of feeling. You have to see suffering with wisdom and make choices to end that suffering based on how things ARE not how clinging makes them look.
Last edited by BasementBuddhist on Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
I think the morality of the Jataka tales seems to be aimed at creating and preserving social harmony and the social status quo, in a world ruled by greed, anger, and delusion. Along with that, it makes sense to aim for social harmony and the status quo in "the usual ways," so, no batman. ("Supernatural" interventions don't seem to have the capacity to affect people's behavior, as they are too alien to people. Superheroes do their superthings, save people, solve problems, but people still behave in the same old ways afterwards.)aflatun wrote:Well of course! Having a y chromosome myself, my initial reaction was also to not only reject the 'rules' of the story but to wonder why the Bodhisatva wouldn't choose to pull a batman and pummel the bandit into submission and then keep him restrained until the ship reached safety. But your implied solution is far more elegant and I like it better
Also note that the protagonist of the Jataka tales is an unenlightened being.
I think that in actual, real-life situations, there are usually many more factors to consider and far more options available than in abstract moral thought experiments.But I think what the myth is getting at (I don't call it a myth to denigrate it, I just mean it seems to present itself as an imagistic story whose purpose is to illustrate ostensibly timeless principles), is if there were a situation in which those were the only options, what would be the most virtuous course of action?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
Excellent questions!chownah wrote:Is the idea of compassion (the kind the buddha talked about) something that can be applied to actions?....as in "what is the most compassionate action......"....or is it something that can only rightly be applied to individuals or even only to an individuals inner mechanizations? I think that the buddha had compassion but it has not much to do with any actions he undertook.....but I'm not sure......
I think this topic requires an in-depth analysis, and I suggest you start a thread for it.
- - -
Yes. But how many practicing Buddhists find themselves in such situations or in the position to actually do something about them?David N. Snyder wrote:However, in other circumstances there have been genocidal killings in progress, actually going on and then the choices become difficult and real.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Have any Mahayana Buddhists attained Nirvana today?
chownah wrote:Is the idea of compassion (the kind the buddha talked about) something that can be applied to actions?....as in "what is the most compassionate action......"....or is it something that can only rightly be applied to individuals or even only to an individuals inner mechanizations? I think that the buddha had compassion but it has not much to do with any actions he undertook.....but I'm not sure......
The venerable Johann aka. Hanzze has often explained the precepts as the most pure and simple, or maybe the only actual or essential expression of compassion, if I understood him correctly. And I found this most plausible.binocular wrote:Excellent questions!
I think this topic requires an in-depth analysis, and I suggest you start a thread for it.
I guess this thread here was meant to be about that topic. I don't find any better links now, but it was a topic that he used to explain quite well very often.
With that background I find it most plausible to see compassion as almost synonymous with right resolve, which one might also call, in my understanding, "compassionate resolve". So I think the adjective "compassionate" is best applicable to such kind of resolve, to not harm anybody, through body, speech or mind. And from such resolve spring actions which are naturally restrained by sila, the more one understands the bigger picture and sees the consequences of actions, through repeated reflection. In that light, breaking sila under the guise of "skillful means" makes no sense.
Maybe this should be in another thread, as binocular suggested. But I have no more than this to add at the moment, and not much time for a more involved discussion. So just wanted to leave it as a side note/thought here.