smiley.face wrote:I apologize if I seem frank.
smiley.face wrote:Rather, this is the best way I know on how to phrase discussion and get back results.
smiley.face wrote:Buddhavistas are those who pretty much reach enlightenment but do not go all the way.
smiley.face wrote:What of it?
"Why then do some people define Buddhism as non-attachment rather than detachment?"
"It is when we become supremely indifferent to everything of the illusion that we truly unhook ourselves from this wheel of suffering."
"Option A says Option B is incorrect as Option B is falling in love with the illusion.
Option B says Option A is incorrect as Option A is attaching oneself to the desire of achieving enlightenment. It is averting the world as it is and longing instead for a state of being it hopes to achieve in the future"
So, which Buddhism is the real Buddhism?
1: How do Buddhists reconcile detachment and compassion?
2: Is the goal of Buddhism to reach a state of being beyond the illusion (world of time, space, and suffering) or is it to find contentment within the illusion that comes from realizing that the illusion is an illusion?
3: If the goal is to detach and go to a state of being beyond this world and its suffering, doesn't having compassion for the world fetter us to it?
The Buddha himself left his wife and son to seek enlightenment. Does this not indicate that enlightenment is the priority and everything else second if counted at all?
4: Some seem to see Bodhisatta, if I am understanding the term correctly, as an idea to aspire to as they deny themselves from breaking the reincarnation cycle to stay back and help others reach enlightenment. But the Buddha himself goes on to Nirvana. If the station of Bodhisatta is necessary, why then did the Buddha not exemplify it?
5: Or is it not necessary but rather something some Buddhists still feel compelled to do out of compassion? If so, is this not compassion holding them back from their goal? The very goal that the Buddha achieved.
6: Does not compassion beyond teaching the teaching only attach us to this world? Why should we wait for everyone to fallow when the path is open if they want to fallow?
7: Does not compassion enable suffering? If someone is about to hurt themselves, they are about to learn that there is a reaction to what they do. By interfering; it seems I am doing two things. One, shielding the person from the lesson they are about to teach themselves. Two, acting out of attachment by caring for them and their suffering. This further binds myself to them, their suffering, and thus this world. Is it not wiser to let them teach themselves and detach myself while I continue on my journey?
8: Is compassion in Buddhism really something the Buddha teaches?
9: Many Buddhists write about compassion. Does the Buddha? I don't dispute the four noble truths or the eightfold path. Rather, I have yet to read any work from Buddha that would suggest that compassion is a teaching of his. It seems he wrote a lot. Should I look outside the Dhammapada for this answer?
10: If so, which text of the Buddha teaches compassion and logically integrates it with the goals of detachment? They seem such polar and apposite ideas and goals. I don't know how to reconcile them.
M O'C Walshe wrote:The Buddhist doctrine of anatta or 'not self' is a difficult one even for some Buddhists to grasp, but if we think of it in the ethical sense of utter selflessness we can see its practical application. True 'detachment'... means being 'detached' not from other people's problems and sorrows (or indeed from those of the various other beings with which we share this life on earth), but from our own worldly impulses: sense-desires, greed for power and influence and self-assertion, anger and hatred. It is not only not incompatible with 'love': it is in fact the only way in which real love – loving one's neighbor as oneself – can find full expression.
From: Buddhism and Christianity: a positive approach by M O'C. Walshe, Wheel 275/276, Buddhist Publication Society
David2 wrote:The Bodhisattva is not a Theravada teaching, it is a Mahayana teaching.
Ven. Dr. W. Rahula wrote:"There is a wide-spread belief, particularly in the West, that the ideal of the Theravada, which they conveniently identify with Hinayana, is to become an Arahant while that of the Mahayana is to become a Bodhisattva and finally to attain the state of a Buddha. It must be categorically stated that this is incorrect. This idea was spread by some early Orientalists at a time when Buddhist studies were beginning in the West, and the others who followed them accepted it without taking the trouble to go into the problem by examining the texts and living traditions in Buddhist countries. But the fact is that both the Theravada and the Mahayana unanimously accept the Bodhisattva ideal as the highest.
"The definition of the three Yanikas (followers of the three yanas) given by Asanga is very instructive and clarifies some points. According to him, a Sravakayanika (one who takes the vehicle of disciples) is a person who, living according to the law of the disciples. By nature having feeble faculties (qualities), bent on his own liberation through the cultivation of detachment, depending on the Canon of the Disciples (Sravaka-pitaka), practising major and minor qualities, gradually puts an end to suffering. A Pratyeka-Buddha-Yanika (one who takes the Vehicle of the Individual Buddha) is a person who, lives according to the law of the Individual Buddha, By nature having medium faculties, bent on his liberation through the cultivation of detachment, he has the intention of attaining Enlightenment exclusively through his own mental development, depending on the Sravaka-pitaka, practising major and minor qualities, born at a time when there is no Buddha in the world and gradually puts an end to suffering. A Mahayanika (one who takes the Great Vehicle) is a person who, living according to the law of the Bodhisattvas, by nature having sharp faculties, bent on the liberation of all beings, depending on the Canon of the Bodhisattvas, matures other beings, cultivates the pure Buddha-domain, receives predictions or declarations (Vya-Karana) from Buddhas and finally realizes the perfect and complete Enlightenment (Samyaksambodhi).
"From this we can see that anyone who aspires to become a Buddha is a Bodhisattva, a Mahayanist, though he may live in a country or in a community popularly and traditionally regarded as Theravada or Hinayana. Similarly, a person who aspires to attain Nirvana as a disciple is a Sravakayanika or Hinayanist though he may belong to a country or a community considered as Mahayana. Thus it is wrong to believe that there are no Bodhisattvas in Theravada countries or that all are Bodhisattvas in Mahayana countries. It is not conceivable that Sravakas and Bodhisattvas are concentrated in separate geographical areas.
"Further, Asanga says that when a Bodhisattva finally attains Enlightenment (Bodhi) he becomes an Arahant, a Tathagata (i.e. Buddha). Here it must be clearly understood that not only a Sravaka (disciple) but also a Bodhisattva becomes an Arahant when finally he attains Buddhahood. The Theravada position is exactly the same: the Buddha is an Arahant -Araham Samma-SamBuddha - "Arahant, Fully and Perfectly Enlightened Buddha."
"The Mahayana unequivocally says that a Buddha, a Pratyekabuddha and a Sravaka (disciple), all three are equal and alike with regard to their purification or liberation from defilements or impurities (Klesavaranavisuddhi).
"This is also called Vimukti-Kaya (Liberation-body), and in it there is no difference between the three. That means that there are no three different Nirvanas or Vimuktis for three persons. Nirvana or Vimukti is the same for all. But only a Buddha achieves the complete liberation from all the obstructions to the knowable, i.e., obstructions to knowledge (Jneyyavaranavisuddhi), not the Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas. This also is called Dharma-Kaya (Dharma-body), and it is in this and many other innumerable qualities, capacities and abilities that the Buddha becomes incomparable and superior to Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas.
"This Mahayana view is quite in keeping with the Theravada Pali Tripitaka. In the Samyutta-Nikaya the Buddha says that the Tathagata (i.e. Buddha) and a bhikkhu (i.e. sravaka, disciple) liberated through wisdom are equal with regard to their Vimutta (liberation), but the Tathagatha is different and distinguished from the liberated bhikkhus in that he (Tathagata) discovers and shows the Path (Magga) that was not known before.
"These three states of the Sravaka, the Pratyekabuddha and the Buddha are mentioned in the Nidhikanda Sutta of the Khuddakapatha, the first book of the Khuddaka-nikaya, one of the five Collections of the Theravada Tripitaka. It says that by practising virtues such as charity, morality, self-restraint, etc., one may attain, among other things, "the Perfection of the Disciple" (Savaka-Parami), "Enlightenment of the Pratyekabuddha" (Paccekabodhi) and "the Buddha-domain" (Buddhabhumi). They are not called Yanas (vehicles).
"In the Theravada tradition these are known as Bodhis, but not Yanas. The Upasaka-janalankara, a Pali treatise dealing with the ethics for the lay Buddhist written in the 12th century by a Thera called Ananda in the Theravada tradition of the Mahavihara at Anuradhpura, Sri Lanka, says that there are three Bodhis: Savakabodhi (Skt: Sravakabodhi), Paccekabodhi (Skt: Fratyekabodhi) and Sammasambodhi (Skt: Samyaksambodhi). A whole chapter of this book is devoted to the discussion of these three Bodhis in great detail. It says further that when a disciple attains the Bodhi (Enlightenment), he is called Savaka-Buddha (Skt: Sravaka-Buddha)."
unspoken wrote:Buddhist is just a name for you to use so that other religions won't try to convert you haha!
Lead a heedful life and cultivate your own mind, is the true quality we want. Doesn't matter if you are or you are not a buddhist
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests