The attainment of the Arhats

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7518
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Astus » Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:13 pm

tiagolps wrote:Ups, I meant śrāvakas have the realization... "So śrāvakas have the realization of the emptiness of self, but only have a partial realization of the emptiness of phenomena, is that how it should be understood?"
Shravakas believe that the skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus have real existence - i.e. this is the common abhidharma doctrine - and this is why they are said not understand emptiness of dharmas. For more, here is a nice one from the Lankavatara Sutra (2.18):

"Further, Mahamati, those who, afraid of sufferings arising from the discrimination of birth-and-death, seek for Nirvana, do not know that birth-and-death and Nirvana are not to be separated the one from the other; and, seeing that all things subject to discrimination have no reality, imagine that Nirvana consists in the future annihilation of the senses and their fields. They are not aware, Mahamati, of the fact that Nirvana is the Alayavijnana where a revulsion takes place by self-realisation. Therefore, Mahamati, those who are stupid talk of the trinity of vehicles and not of the state of Mind-only where there are no images. Therefore, Mahamati, those who do not understand the teachings of the Tathagatas of the past, present, and future, concerning the external world, which is of Mind itself, cling to the notion that there is a world outside what is seen of the Mind and, Mahamati, go on rolling themselves along the wheel of birth-and-death."
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Tiago Simões
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:41 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Tiago Simões » Mon Mar 06, 2017 12:29 pm

Astus wrote:
tiagolps wrote:Ups, I meant śrāvakas have the realization... "So śrāvakas have the realization of the emptiness of self, but only have a partial realization of the emptiness of phenomena, is that how it should be understood?"
Shravakas believe that the skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus have real existence - i.e. this is the common abhidharma doctrine - and this is why they are said not understand emptiness of dharmas.
But to realize the emptiness of self you have to have some understanding of the emptiness of aggregates that make up the self, no?
Now the real problem starts, because our quotations from the Dashabhumika Sutra and the
Biography of Lord Maitreya Sutra give rise to another question. From both quotations, we now
know that shravakas and pratyekabuddhas do have a realisation of the selflessness of phenomena,
and not just the selflessness of the person. If this were not so, a bodhisattva on the first bhumi
could easily outshine them even with his intelligence. However, because shravakas and
pratyekabuddhas have an understanding of the emptiness of phenomena, the bodhisattva does not
outshine them until the 7th bhumi.
-Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara With commentary by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche
Then, the Licchavi Vimalakīrti spoke to the elder Śāriputra and the great disciples: “Reverends, eat of the food of the Tathāgata! It is ambrosia perfumed by the great compassion. But do not fix your minds in narrow-minded attitudes, lest you be unable to receive its gift.”

- Chapter 9, The Feast Brought by the Emanated Incarnation
The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra “The Teaching of Vimalakīrti”

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7518
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Astus » Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:07 pm

tiagolps wrote:But to realize the emptiness of self you have to have some understanding of the emptiness of aggregates that make up the self, no?
The argument is that since in Hinayana the focus is on the method of recognising that there are only the aggregates but no self, they take the aggregates to be substantial. However, if we think about this a bit, this reasoning doesn't hold up, because shravakas need to realise that the aggregates are neither self nor the possessions of a self, so to say that they are regarded as substantial contradicts the teachings. Similarly, as in the Lankavatara Sutra, there is the argument that shravakas do not know that there is no grasping and no grasped, but that is again refutable once we consider that without attachment to the aggregates there is no basis any more for such a duality. Hence what is called the shravakayana in Mahayana scriptures refers practitioners who misunderstood things, and not what is actually found in the Hinayana works.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Tiago Simões
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:41 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Tiago Simões » Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:41 pm

Astus wrote:
tiagolps wrote:But to realize the emptiness of self you have to have some understanding of the emptiness of aggregates that make up the self, no?
The argument is that since in Hinayana the focus is on the method of recognising that there are only the aggregates but no self, they take the aggregates to be substantial. However, if we think about this a bit, this reasoning doesn't hold up, because shravakas need to realise that the aggregates are neither self nor the possessions of a self, so to say that they are regarded as substantial contradicts the teachings. Similarly, as in the Lankavatara Sutra, there is the argument that shravakas do not know that there is no grasping and no grasped, but that is again refutable once we consider that without attachment to the aggregates there is no basis any more for such a duality. Hence what is called the shravakayana in Mahayana scriptures refers practitioners who misunderstood things, and not what is actually found in the Hinayana works.
Seems fair enough. :smile:
Then, the Licchavi Vimalakīrti spoke to the elder Śāriputra and the great disciples: “Reverends, eat of the food of the Tathāgata! It is ambrosia perfumed by the great compassion. But do not fix your minds in narrow-minded attitudes, lest you be unable to receive its gift.”

- Chapter 9, The Feast Brought by the Emanated Incarnation
The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra “The Teaching of Vimalakīrti”

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Malcolm » Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:18 pm

Astus wrote:
tiagolps wrote:But to realize the emptiness of self you have to have some understanding of the emptiness of aggregates that make up the self, no?
The argument is that since in Hinayana the focus is on the method of recognising that there are only the aggregates but no self, they take the aggregates to be substantial. However, if we think about this a bit, this reasoning doesn't hold up, because shravakas need to realise that the aggregates are neither self nor the possessions of a self, so to say that they are regarded as substantial contradicts the teachings.
No, since the śrāvakas maintain these dharmas — aggregates, āyatanas, and dhātus — are substantially real. Vasubandhu uses the example whereby a pot is a relative truth, its shards, are ultimate.

But until we come to Madhyamaka, there is no school that can escape the charge of being substantialist, including Yogacara (a form of nondual substantialism).

Also, Candrakīrti's comments about the realization of the emptiness of phenomena with respect to arhats is only considered from the point of view of recognizing the absence of inherent existence. But the emptiness of inherent existence is not the profound Mahāyāna emptiness free from four extremes.

Tiago Simões
Posts: 985
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:41 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Tiago Simões » Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:31 pm

Malcolm wrote:Also, Candrakīrti's comments about the realization of the emptiness of phenomena with respect to arhats is only considered from the point of view of recognizing the absence of inherent existence. But the emptiness of inherent existence is not the profound Mahāyāna emptiness free from four extremes.
Because Śrāvakas focus on the extreme of "existence" and the extreme of "non existence",but not on the extremes of "both existence and nonexistence" and "neither existence nor non existence"?
Then, the Licchavi Vimalakīrti spoke to the elder Śāriputra and the great disciples: “Reverends, eat of the food of the Tathāgata! It is ambrosia perfumed by the great compassion. But do not fix your minds in narrow-minded attitudes, lest you be unable to receive its gift.”

- Chapter 9, The Feast Brought by the Emanated Incarnation
The Noble Mahāyāna Sūtra “The Teaching of Vimalakīrti”

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Malcolm » Mon Mar 06, 2017 3:40 pm

tiagolps wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Also, Candrakīrti's comments about the realization of the emptiness of phenomena with respect to arhats is only considered from the point of view of recognizing the absence of inherent existence. But the emptiness of inherent existence is not the profound Mahāyāna emptiness free from four extremes.
Because Śrāvakas focus on the extreme of "existence" and the extreme of "non existence",but not on the extremes of "both existence and nonexistence" and "neither existence nor non existence"?
It is because the fourfold emptiness is unknown to śrāvakas.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7518
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Astus » Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:07 pm

Malcolm wrote:the śrāvakas maintain these dharmas — aggregates, āyatanas, and dhātus — are substantially real
Aside from terminology, it is agreed on by both parties that a shravaka does not assume a self and has no clinging to the aggregates. So while the abhidharma style presentation may be criticised as incomplete, not the realisation, as being without attachment toward phenomena is the goal even in Mahayana.
But until we come to Madhyamaka, there is no school that can escape the charge of being substantialist, including Yogacara (a form of nondual substantialism).
I have seen Madhyamaka interpreted in a similar way, where emptiness is considered some sort of ultimate substratum. Then one might argue that is the wrong interpretation, however, the same could be said about arguments put against abhidharma and yogacara as well.
But the emptiness of inherent existence is not the profound Mahāyāna emptiness free from four extremes.
Once there is no attachment to the mental aggregates, there can be not grasping at views either.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Malcolm » Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:20 pm

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:the śrāvakas maintain these dharmas — aggregates, āyatanas, and dhātus — are substantially real
Aside from terminology, it is agreed on by both parties that a shravaka does not assume a self and has no clinging to the aggregates. So while the abhidharma style presentation may be criticised as incomplete, not the realisation, as being without attachment toward phenomena is the goal even in Mahayana.
Since skandhas, āyatanas, and dhātus are regarded as ultimate and real, even by arhats, they do not perceive the emptiness of phenomena.


But until we come to Madhyamaka, there is no school that can escape the charge of being substantialist, including Yogacara (a form of nondual substantialism).
I have seen Madhyamaka interpreted in a similar way, where emptiness is considered some sort of ultimate substratum. Then one might argue that is the wrong interpretation, however, the same could be said about arguments put against abhidharma and yogacara as well.
But, in the case of emptiness, it is not substantial at all. Since everything is empty, nothing is substantial.


But the emptiness of inherent existence is not the profound Mahāyāna emptiness free from four extremes.
Once there is no attachment to the mental aggregates, there can be not grasping at views either.
Sure there can.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7518
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Astus » Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:32 pm

Malcolm wrote:Since skandhas, āyatanas, and dhātus are regarded as ultimate and real, even by arhats, they do not perceive the emptiness of phenomena.
Astus wrote:Once there is no attachment to the mental aggregates, there can be not grasping at views either.
Sure there can.
If no mental aggregate is clung to, in what form can there be attachment to any view? Unless concepts are beyond the aggregates, I do not see how that is possible.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Malcolm » Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:49 pm

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Since skandhas, āyatanas, and dhātus are regarded as ultimate and real, even by arhats, they do not perceive the emptiness of phenomena.
Astus wrote:Once there is no attachment to the mental aggregates, there can be not grasping at views either.
Sure there can.
If no mental aggregate is clung to, in what form can there be attachment to any view? Unless concepts are beyond the aggregates, I do not see how that is possible.
Your argument is internally incoherent. According your argument, a stream entrant should be Vajradhara.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7518
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Astus » Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:55 pm

Malcolm wrote:Your argument is internally incoherent. According your argument, a stream entrant should be Vajradhara.
How so? A stream-entrant has correct view, but still very much bound by the aggregates.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Malcolm » Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:03 pm

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:Your argument is internally incoherent. According your argument, a stream entrant should be Vajradhara.
How so? A stream-entrant has correct view, but still very much bound by the aggregates.
No, a stream enterer is free from the fetter of attachment to wrong views. Such a person is not bound by the aggregates, they are subject to the effects of latent afflictions that keep them in samsara for a further 7 births. But they have no wrong views concerning the absence of persons in the aggregates at all, despite whatever other misconceptions they may hold.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7518
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Astus » Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:14 pm

Malcolm wrote:No, a stream enterer is free from the fetter of attachment to wrong views. Such a person is not bound by the aggregates
A stream-enterer is still bound by the three poisons, hence attached to the aggregates. Having correct view is the beginning, not the end, and that's why there is a need for cultivation.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Malcolm
Posts: 29105
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Malcolm » Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:18 pm

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:No, a stream enterer is free from the fetter of attachment to wrong views. Such a person is not bound by the aggregates
A stream-enterer is still bound by the three poisons, hence attached to the aggregates. Having correct view is the beginning, not the end, and that's why there is a need for cultivation.
No, not all three poisons. And while there is need for the eradication of latent afflictions from strong/stong to weak/weak, there is no change in view at all. In other words, Arhats and stream entrants have identical views of selflessness.

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7518
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Astus » Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:07 pm

Malcolm wrote:Arhats and stream entrants have identical views of selflessness.
They both have the correct view, but only arhats are free from clinging. It is because arhats are free from clinging to any aggregates that I said above that there is no place left for any attachment. If you claim that arhats are still afflicted by some form of attachment, the object of attachment must lie beyond the aggregates.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

Rakz
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Rakz » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:53 am

Astus wrote:
Malcolm wrote:No, a stream enterer is free from the fetter of attachment to wrong views. Such a person is not bound by the aggregates
A stream-enterer is still bound by the three poisons, hence attached to the aggregates. Having correct view is the beginning, not the end, and that's why there is a need for cultivation.
I was shocked when I read stream enterers are still capable of anger, ill-will, jealousy, stinginess, deceit, craftiness, shamelessness, and brazenness. After reading this on the sister site it doesn't seem stream entry is out of reach for anyone including your average joe.
Nanavire Thera wrote:A sekha (bhikkhu or layman), as you rightly say, is a sotāpanna, a sakadāgāmī, or an anāgāmī, and the word 'sekha' means 'one who is training (scil. to become arahat)'. If he is sotāpanna he has at most seven more human existences—he cannot take an eighth human birth.[1] But if (as a bhikkhu in good health) he exerts himself now in the practice of meditation he may become sakadāgāmī, anāgāmī, or even arahat, in this very life. In this case he either reduces or completely cancels the number of fresh existences (as man or deva) he will have to undergo. If, however, he spends his time doing jobs of work, talking, or sleeping, he may die still as a sotāpanna and have to endure up to seven more human existences (not to speak of heavenly existences). In this sense, therefore, these things are obstacles for the sekha: they prevent him from hastening his arrival at arahattā, but they cannot prevent his ultimate arrival (see 'The Mirror of the Dhamma', BPS Wheel 54, p. 39, verse 9).[2]

I am delighted to hear that you are shocked to learn from the Buddha that a sekha bhikkhu can be fond of work, talk, or sleep. (I make no apology for speaking bluntly since (i) if I do not do it nobody else will, and (ii) as I have already told you, time may be short.)

Quite in general, I find that the Buddhists of Ceylon are remarkably complacent at being the preservers and inheritors of the Buddha's Teaching, and remarkably ignorant of what the Buddha actually taught. Except by a few learned theras (who are dying out), the contents of the Suttas are practically unknown. This fact, combined with the great traditional reverence for the Dhamma as the National Heritage, has turned the Buddha's Teaching into an immensely valuable antique Object of Veneration, with a large placard in front, 'DO NOT TOUCH'. In other words, the Dhamma in Ceylon is now totally divorced from reality (if you want statistical evidence, tell me how many English-educated graduates of the University of Ceylon have thought it worthwhile to become bhikkhus[3]). It is simply taken for granted (by bhikkhus and laymen alike) that there are not, and cannot possibly be, any sekha bhikkhus (or laymen) actually walking about in Ceylon today. People can no longer imagine what kind of a creature a sotapānna might conceivably be, and in consequence superstitiously credit him with every kind of perfection—but deny him the possibility of existence.

I venture to think that if you actually read through the whole of the Vinaya and the Suttas you would be aghast at some of the things a real live sotāpanna is capable of. As a bhikkhu he is capable of suicide (but so also is an arahat—I have already quoted examples); he is capable of breaking all the lesser Vinaya rules (M. 48: i,323-5; A. III,85: i,231-2); he is capable of disrobing on account of sensual desires (e.g. the Ven. Citta Hatthisāriputta—A. VI,60: iii,392-9); he is capable (to some degree) of anger, ill-will, jealousy, stinginess, deceit, craftiness, shamelessness, and brazenness (A. II,16: i,96). As a layman he is capable (contrary to popular belief) of breaking any or all of the five precepts (though as soon as he has done so he recognizes his fault and repairs the breach, unlike the puthujjana who is content to leave the precepts broken).

There are some things in the Suttas that have so much shocked the Commentator that he has been obliged to provide patently false explanations (I am thinking in particular of the arahat's suicide in M. 144: iii,266 and in the Salāyatana Samy. 87: iv,55-60 and of a drunken sotāpanna in the Sotāpatti Samy. 24: v,375-7). What the sotāpannais absolutely incapable of doing is the following (M. 115: iii,64-5):—

To take any determination (sankhāra) as permanent,
To take any determination as pleasant,
To take any thing (dhamma) as self,
To kill his mother,
To kill his father,
To kill an arahat,
Maliciously to shed a Buddha's blood,
To split the Sangha,
To follow any teacher other than the Buddha.
All these things a puthujjana can do.

Why am I glad that you are shocked to learn that a sekha bhikkhu can be fond of talk (and worse)? Because it gives me the opportunity of insisting that unless you bring the sekha down to earth the Buddha's Teaching can never be a reality for you. So long as you are content to put the sotāpanna on a pedestal well out of reach, it can never possibly occur to you that it is your duty to become sotāpanna yourself (or at least to make the attempt) here and now in this very life; for you will simply take it as axiomatic that you cannot succeed. As Kierkegaard puts it,

Whatever is great in the sphere of the universally human must...not be communicated as a subject for admiration, but as an ethical requirement. (CUP, p. 320)
This means that you are not required to admire a sotāpanna, but to become one.
Let me illustrate the matter in a different way. It is possible that you were living as a young man in India in the Buddha's day, and that at the same time there was a young girl of a neighbouring family who had been with her parents to hear the Buddha teach. And she may have understood the Buddha's Teaching and become sotāpanna. And perhaps she might have been given to you in marriage. And you, being a puthujjana, would not know that she was a sekha (for remember, a puthujjana cannot recognize an ariya—an ariya can only be recognized by another ariya). But even though she was sotāpanna she might have loved you, and loved being loved by you, and loved bearing your children, and enjoyed dressing beautifully and entertaining guests and going to entertainments, and even been pleased at the admiration of other men. And she might have taken a pride in working to keep your house in order, and enjoyed talking to you and to your friends and relations. But every now and again, when she was alone, she would have called to mind her sotāpanna's understanding of the true nature of things and been secretly ashamed and disgusted at still finding delight in all these satisfactions (which she would see as essentially dukkha). But, being busy with her duties and pleasures as your wife, she would not have had the time to do much practice, and would have had to be content with the thought that she had only seven more human births to endure at the most.

Now suppose that one day you had gone to see the Buddha, and he had told you that your wife was not a puthujjana like yourself, but an ariya, one of the Elect—would you have been content to put her out of reach on a pedestal (where she would, no doubt, have been very unhappy), saying to yourself 'Ah, that is too difficult an attainment for a humble person like me'? Or would not rather your masculine pride have been stung to the quick and be smarting at the thought that your devoted and submissive wife should be 'one advanced in the Dhamma', while you, the lord and master of the household, remained an ordinary person? I think, perhaps, that you would have made an effort at least to become the equal of your wife.

smcj
Posts: 6467
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by smcj » Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:21 am

Astus wrote:I have seen Madhyamaka interpreted in a similar way, where emptiness is considered some sort of ultimate substratum.
Really? Prasangika Madhyamaka? Where? By whom? That is the big no-no.
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.
2. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 7518
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by Astus » Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:00 am

smcj wrote:Really? Prasangika Madhyamaka? Where? By whom? That is the big no-no.
It's not that unusual. I'd say it's a possible stage in one's learning, where the two truths are completely separated, and the ultimate sounds just like concepts that one is already familiar with, like God, oneness, etc.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"

muni
Posts: 4786
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: The attainment of the Arhats

Post by muni » Tue Mar 07, 2017 11:14 am

oneness
as all words and concepts depend on consciousness, and have no meaning in themselves, oneness reminds me on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOsQa7sf6FE Maybe not usefull here, but still, somehow it reminds me.
Which human beings are “fortunate and connected?” They are the ones who generate love, compassion, and devotion, as well as the commitment to remain steadfast on the path until all beings are liberated. Venerable Khenpo Rinpoches.

Examining the faults of others will not benefit anyone and only leads to more disturbing emotions, blocking our path to liberation. Penor Rinpoche

Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Astus, Viach and 71 guests