since there can be one king or PM or president, can there be a few Buddha teachings at the same time? There can only be a Buddha to appear, but not 2 Buddha's appearing at the same time, or there can only be a Buddha appearing and when his teachings ended, then the next Buddha will appear after a long period of time.
Originally posted by Rooney9:since there can be one king or PM or president, can there be a few Buddha teachings at the same time? There can only be a Buddha to appear, but not 2 Buddha's appearing at the same time, or there can only be a Buddha appearing and when his teachings ended, then the next Buddha will appear after a long period of time.
There can only be one Nirmanakaya Buddha in one universe in one era. In our era, it is Shakyamuni Buddha.
However, there are numberless Buddhas belonging to different universes.
how come there are Amitabha Buddha teachings and Buddha Medicine teachings?
since there can only be one Buddha who appear. too many teachings spoil the broth, since all Buddha teachings are the same. But Pureland Paradise practise is to chant Buddha Amitabha's name in order to be reborn there, which is different from what Buddha Shakayamuni taught.
anyway is Pureland within or outside of Samsara, how does it compare to Nirvana?
Originally posted by Rooney9:how come there are Amitabha Buddha teachings and Buddha Medicine teachings?
since there can only be one Buddha who appear. too many teachings spoil the broth, since all Buddha teachings are the same. But Pureland Paradise practise is to chant Buddha Amitabha's name in order to be reborn there, which is different from what Buddha Shakayamuni taught.
anyway is Pureland within or outside of Samsara, how does it compare to Nirvana?
Amitabha Buddha and Medicine Buddha are from another universe.
Pure Land is not a samsaric realm. However, depending on which level of pure land (there are four), it may not necessarily be Nirvana. At the lowest level it could be an expedient means, a place for people to practice to attain Nirvana.
how come there are Amitabha Buddha teachings and Buddha Medicine
teachings?
Shakyamuni Buddha taught us about Amitabha Buddha and Buddha Medicine, that's why we have these teachings.
since there can only be one Buddha who appear. too many
teachings spoil the broth, since all Buddha teachings are the same.
Doesn't spoil the broth. Sentient beings are different. Some like salty broth, some like spicy broth, some like sweet broth. So they pick the dharma door they prefer and practice.
But Pureland Paradise practise is to chant Buddha Amitabha's name
in order to be reborn there, which is different from what Buddha
Shakayamuni taught.
Pureland practice is not different from what Buddha Shakayamuni taught. It is one of the dharma doors taught by Shakyamuni Buddha without being request - indicating it's importance.
anyway is Pureland within or outside of Samsara, how does it
compare to Nirvana?
When pureland practitioners recite Amitabha Buddha's name and get reborn in pure land, they will never backslide from there, and only progress forward to Buddhahood.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Amitabha Buddha and Medicine Buddha are from another universe.
Pure Land is not a samsaric realm. However, depending on which level of pure land (there are four), it may not necessarily be Nirvana. At the lowest level it could be an expedient means, a place for people to practice to attain Nirvana.
interesting question.. I thought Pureland is a samaric place...
Originally posted by zero thought:how come there are Amitabha Buddha teachings and Buddha Medicine teachings?
Shakyamuni Buddha taught us about Amitabha Buddha and Buddha Medicine, that's why we have these teachings.since there can only be one Buddha who appear. too many teachings spoil the broth, since all Buddha teachings are the same.
Doesn't spoil the broth. Sentient beings are different. Some like salty broth, some like spicy broth, some like sweet broth. So they pick the dharma door they prefer and practice.
But Pureland Paradise practise is to chant Buddha Amitabha's name in order to be reborn there, which is different from what Buddha Shakayamuni taught.
Pureland practice is not different from what Buddha Shakayamuni taught. It is one of the dharma doors taught by Shakyamuni Buddha without being request - indicating it's importance.anyway is Pureland within or outside of Samsara, how does it compare to Nirvana?
When pureland practitioners recite Amitabha Buddha's name and get reborn in pure land, they will never backslide from there, and only progress forward to Buddhahood.
Ahh thanks for the explanation...
But what about those who made Pu Sa's vow? I assumed those who made Pu Sa's vow will go into samsaric world to enlighten others and delay Nirvana... including Pureland as well?
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Amitabha Buddha and Medicine Buddha are from another universe.
Pure Land is not a samsaric realm. However, depending on which level of pure land (there are four), it may not necessarily be Nirvana. At the lowest level it could be an expedient means, a place for people to practice to attain Nirvana.
it is at odds with what Shakyamuni taught ie Nirvana.
anything not Nirvana like heaven etc, is within samsara isnt it. when a person unenlightened when he/she was alive, how to be reborn in pureland and become enlightened even if Amitabha Buddha was there. even the Buddha himself said he is a teacher, you yourself has to walk the path. even Amitabha Buddha also cannot guarantee one to attain Nirvana reborn in his pureland
Originally posted by zero thought:how come there are Amitabha Buddha teachings and Buddha Medicine teachings?
Shakyamuni Buddha taught us about Amitabha Buddha and Buddha Medicine, that's why we have these teachings.since there can only be one Buddha who appear. too many teachings spoil the broth, since all Buddha teachings are the same.
Doesn't spoil the broth. Sentient beings are different. Some like salty broth, some like spicy broth, some like sweet broth. So they pick the dharma door they prefer and practice.
But Pureland Paradise practise is to chant Buddha Amitabha's name in order to be reborn there, which is different from what Buddha Shakayamuni taught.
Pureland practice is not different from what Buddha Shakayamuni taught. It is one of the dharma doors taught by Shakyamuni Buddha without being request - indicating it's importance.anyway is Pureland within or outside of Samsara, how does it compare to Nirvana?
When pureland practitioners recite Amitabha Buddha's name and get reborn in pure land, they will never backslide from there, and only progress forward to Buddhahood.
I am more inclined to Theravada. Amitbaha and Buddha Medicine was not in the Theravada canon, which brings to a question, why wasnt it included when it was taught by the historical Buddha. there is no reason why it was not included if it was indeed taught by the Buddha isnt it.
haha then I assume theravada broth suits u... lol
I am wondering if it was taught by the Buddha, why wasnt it included in th theravada canon during the first council. during that time, Mahayana wasnt formed yet and there was no notion of theravada nor Mahayana during the Buddha's time. unless it wasnt taught by the Buddha himself.
There are many theories about how Mahayana sutras came about, many still believe they were the words of the historical Nirmanakaya Shakyamuni.
However as I have explained my position on this before, based on evidence and the views of Loppon Namdrol. ALL Mahayana Sutras are later revelations by enlightened masters who received visions of Sambhogakaya. Pure visions of the Buddha. So are Mahayana Sutras taught by Shakyamuni? I would say yes: but the Sambhogakaya manifestation, not Nirmanakaya.
Mahayana Sutras are revealed later when the conditions to spread Mahayana has come to be. It was not taught 2500 years ago by the historical appearance of Buddha. This however, does not mean that Mahayana sutras are invalid.
As Namdrol stated, "That is completely irrelevent to the quality of the teaching of this or that sutra. One's criteria ought not be authorship, but wisdom."
Originally posted by Rooney9:it is at odds with what Shakyamuni taught ie Nirvana.
anything not Nirvana like heaven etc, is within samsara isnt it. when a person unenlightened when he/she was alive, how to be reborn in pureland and become enlightened even if Amitabha Buddha was there. even the Buddha himself said he is a teacher, you yourself has to walk the path. even Amitabha Buddha also cannot guarantee one to attain Nirvana reborn in his pureland
It is not at odds because the lowest level of pure land is set as expedient means for practitioners to practice and attain enlightenment/nirvana.
Even in Pure Land, if you are unenlightened, you have to practice yourself to become enlightened. Amitabha simply provides you with the best environment and conditions to help you along. You still have to practice yourself.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:There are many theories about how Mahayana sutras came about, many still believe they were the words of the historical Nirmanakaya Shakyamuni.
However as I have explained my position on this before, based on evidence and the views of Loppon Namdrol. ALL Mahayana Sutras are later revelations by enlightened masters who received visions of Sambhogakaya. Pure visions of the Buddha. So are Mahayana Sutras taught by Shakyamuni? I would say yes: but the Sambhogakaya manifestation, not Nirmanakaya.
Mahayana Sutras are revealed later when the conditions to spread Mahayana has come to be. It was not taught 2500 years ago by the historical appearance of Buddha. This however, does not mean that Mahayana sutras are invalid.
As Namdrol stated, "That is completely irrelevent to the quality of the teaching of this or that sutra. One's criteria ought not be authorship, but wisdom."
fair enough, but then it doesnt state why it was not included in the theravada canon in the first council. I am not siding theravada or anything, I just want to establish the facts.
masters? are they as the same level as the Buddha? what about Namdrol then? I was wondering if the Buddha did forsee this? did he mentioned anything on this? The Buddha, during his 45 years of teaching, I was wondering why did he hold back on this?
I am not anti Mahayana, dun get me wrong. someone told me something, which is highly controversial, which If I post it here, will create alot of ruckus and endless debate. Buddha Amitabha, Guan Shi Yin Pusa and Lotus Sutra was not included in the Theravada canon. If it was taught by the historical Buddha, there should be included in.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It is not at odds because the lowest level of pure land is set as expedient means for practitioners to practice and attain enlightenment/nirvana.
Even in Pure Land, if you are unenlightened, you have to practice yourself to become enlightened. Amitabha simply provides you with the best environment and conditions to help you along. You still have to practice yourself.
the issue is if u are unenlightened, you can create alot of problems for urself even if u r in heaven. same when these people go to pureland. due to their ignorance, what makes you think they will practise and be good.
Originally posted by Rooney9:fair enough, but then it doesnt state why it was not included in the theravada canon in the first council. I am not siding theravada or anything, I just want to establish the facts.
masters? are they as the same level as the Buddha? what about Namdrol then? I was wondering if the Buddha did forsee this? did he mentioned anything on this? The Buddha, during his 45 years of teaching, I was wondering why did he hold back on this?
I am not anti Mahayana, dun get me wrong. someone told me something, which is highly controversial, which If I post it here, will create alot of ruckus and endless debate. Buddha Amitabha, Guan Shi Yin Pusa and Lotus Sutra was not included in the Theravada canon. If it was taught by the historical Buddha, there should be included in.
What your friend told you is nothing new. It is all known before already.
Not only is Lotus Sutra not in Theravadin canon, basically every single Mahayana canon scripture except the Agamas are not found in Theravadin canon. You name it: Heart Sutra, Diamond Sutra, Prajnaparamita Sutras, Lankavatara Sutra, Shurangama Sutra, Amitabha Sutra, Lotus Sutra, Avatamsaka Sutra, Virmalakirti Sutra, Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva Sutra, etc etc.
Same goes to Bodhisattvas and Buddhas - Guan Yin, Amitabha, Medicine Buddha, Manjusri, Ksitigarbha, Samantabhadra, you name it - all those bodhisattvas/buddhas cannot be found in Theravada.
The only bodhisattvas mentioned in Theravada is 1) Shakyamuni, before he became Buddha, 2) Maitreya, the next-to-be-Buddha, Bodhisattva, currently residing in Tusita Heaven.
As I said, all Mahayana sutras are revealed only later when the conditions have come. The Nirmanakaya Shakyamuni Buddha wanted to focus on certain teachings that he felt will be more beneficial/acceptable to that particular group of students and conditions, due to their inclinations and capacities. Particularly he wanted to focus on teaching the way to the attainment of Arhantship and the end of suffering - it was seen as a more immediate and practical and acceptable goal for those people at that time, rather than focusing on how to practice as a Bodhisattva to attain Buddhahood in order to save all sentient beings.
As for Sambhogakaya: it could be that those masters are fully enlightened, or even if not, they are at least 8th bhumi bodhisattvas, otherwise they will not be able to have visions of the sambhogakaya Buddha.
Originally posted by 2009novice:Ahh thanks for the explanation...
But what about those who made Pu Sa's vow? I assumed those who made Pu Sa's vow will go into samsaric world to enlighten others and delay Nirvana... including Pureland as well?
It depends on their vow. But if they know enough of Pureland, they will very likely choose to go there 1st, then return to samsara to help sentient beings, because in Pureland you can't retreat from Nirvana, and only progress forward in the conducive environment.
If they choose not to go to Pureland and want to practice here till they are able to help enlighten others, still can backslide in practice. As ordinary sentient beings trying for Bodhisattvahood and Buddhahood, we are still easily turned by evil states hence can still fall to the lower realms. In Pureland, no one who goes there will ever fall back into the 3 lower realms.
When we are still drowning in the ocean of suffering, it's difficult to help others in the sea to safety. So for those who make Pu Sa vow, it is still best to get climb on to the PL ship 1st where they will be safe and dry before trying help others onto it.
Originally posted by zero thought:It depends on their vow. But if they know enough of Pureland, they will very likely choose to go there 1st, then return to samsara to help sentient beings, because in Pureland you can't retreat from Nirvana, and only progress forward in the conducive environment.
If they choose not to go to Pureland and want to practice here till they are able to help enlighten others, still can backslide in practice. As ordinary sentient beings trying for Bodhisattvahood and Buddhahood, we are still easily turned by evil states hence can still fall to the lower realms. In Pureland, no one who goes there will ever fall back into the 3 lower realms.
When we are still drowning in the ocean of suffering, it's difficult to help others in the sea to safety. So for those who make Pu Sa vow, it is still best to get climb on to the PL ship 1st where they will be safe and dry before trying help others onto it.
oh... thanks for the information... zero thought
@ TS - just for further thought, u said that too many teachings spoil the broth. I remembered there was once I attended a dharma talk and the fa shi mentioned that there were various teachings because our nature self is different. So that's the reason to help spread and enlighten the diverse types of people.
Mahayana blends into various cultures of different type of people so that the teachings can "speak" their languages.
Originally posted by Rooney9:I am more inclined to Theravada. Amitbaha and Buddha Medicine was not in the Theravada canon, which brings to a question, why wasnt it included when it was taught by the historical Buddha. there is no reason why it was not included if it was indeed taught by the Buddha isnt it.
Originally, there wasn't and any Theravada or Mahayana, it was just "The Buddha's Teachings".
Like what AEN mentioned, the ability to receive and accept the Buddha's teachings depend on conditions. If everything is put in one canon, beings whose conditions for the Mahayana has not ripen see the teachings, they will not be able to accept the teachings. If a student do not believe in 1 teaching of a teacher, will there be a higher tendency for the student to doubt the other teachings? Things have to be revealed according to conditions, if conditions are not right, throwing everything out will not help but may in fact hinder the situation.
Originally posted by Rooney9:
the issue is if u are unenlightened, you can create alot of problems for urself even if u r in heaven. same when these people go to pureland. due to their ignorance, what makes you think they will practise and be good.
To understand this point, you will have to read the Pureland Sutras and their commentaries. The Pure Land is not like our turbid world with all kind of impurities and stuff to distract us and dull our minds. The environment there is very conducive and beings in the Pureland only progress forward to Buddhahood, they don't get lazy and slacken off in practice.There are many birds (from the transformations of Amitabha Buddha), wonderous music, etc. in the Pureland that are constantly speaking the dharma to the beings there and hence the beings there are constantly mindful of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. If they are constantly mindful of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, how can they commit evil out of ignorance?
the broth is empty as much as the meat is a vegetable..
Skillful means:-
Coping with by Aggacitta Bhikkhu Published for free distribution by Produced by Sasanarakkha Buddhist Sanctuary Publication Team (English) Permission to reprint for free distribution and non-commercial usage may be obtained in writing from the publisher. This printing: 3000 copies Printed by Setiakawan, Selangor ISBN 983-41646-1-0 GUIDE TO NON-ENGLISH TERMS With the exception of proper nouns, uncommon non -English words are italicized, with full diacritical marks on their first occurrence in the main text, followed by their English translations in round brackets. In subsequent occurrences, they are in normal font. More common terms will also be with full diacritical marks and italicized on their first occurrence but will not be accompanied by translations. For easy reference, a glossary of such non-English terms, including some proper nouns, is provided on pg 18. Certain words in the main text are accompanied by their original Pali equivalents, which are italicized and placed within round brackets, These are not further explained in the glossary. Abbr. Text Reference according to SN Samyutta Nikaya Samyutta number:Sutta number Dhp Dhammapada Verse number MN Majjhima Nikaya Sutta number All references are based on Vipassana Research Institute's Chattha Sangayana CD-ROM (V.3.0). “What do you think, monks? Which are more... the leaves in my hand or those above the sisapa forest?" The Blessed One was staying near Kosambi in the sisapa forest when he picked up a handful of sisapa leaves and posed this question. "Few are the leaves in your hand, Bhante answered the monks, "compared to the abundant leaves above the sisapa forest." "It is so indeed, monks," said the Blessed Or "In the same way, vast is the knowledge that I have directly realised but not revealed. But why did not reveal it?" The Buddha explained that it was because such knowledge was not conducive to total liberation from the sufferings pertaining to the endless round of births and deaths. (Sisapavana Sutta, SN 56:31). Centuries later, the "handful of leave" bequeathed to us was subsequently inscribed in three huge baskets of dried palm leaves, then printed in several thousand pages, and now stored in several hundred megabytes of disc space. How can we relate the method of vipassana (insight) meditation that we are so familiar with to the handful of sisapa leaves? Could it be a leaf, perhaps just a cell? Or maybe even more minute than that? Not very long ago, I was involved in an open discussion about various methods of vipassana meditation. A long-time Mahasi yogi asked, "What do you think of the Goenka method? They even claim that they are doing vipassana meditation." I was quite startled by his remark because it implied that only the Mahasi method was vipassana while others were not. There are, in fact, some yogis who had difficulty making headway in the Mahasi method but found the Pa Auk method more suitable for their meditative progress. Some of them have made such great advancement that they have become qualified teachers of that method. Yet there are others who assert that access or absorption concentration is an absolute prere quisite before a yogi can even start to mentally observe (vipassati) the grossest of ultimate reality - material phenomena, not to mention mental phenomena like thoughts, emotions and defilements. One particular yogi had been regularly practising the Mahasi method on his own for several months when he was talked into accepting this view. He was advised to stop noting predominant physical and mental phenomena "interrupting" his meditation and to just concentrate on the breath at his nostrils. For three months he diligently tried to do so. Later he told me that although anapanassati (mindfulness of the in-breath and out-breath) gave him some peace and calmness, he found that his everyday mindfulness was becoming dull and blunt. When he was practising general mindfulness, he could watch his thoughts and emotions even when he was at work, and that helped him in self-restraint. But since he changed to pure samatha (tranquillity) meditation, he was getting wilder in his behaviour. Several years ago when I was in Myanmar, I had a discussion with a brother forest monk, Hman Taung Forest Sayadaw U Candobhasa. He is one of the more exceptional yogis that I have met. Having practised various methods of meditation, e.g. Mahasi, Sun Lun, Mogok, Than Un Ya, Kanni, etc., he was still very enthusiastic when I told him about the Pa Auk method. "How can you cope with so many methods?" I asked. "Whenever I start to learn a new method I make that I completely let go of any other techniques I have learnt before," replied Sayadaw. "One must be unbiased, objective and believing when practising under a competent master. Only then can one reap the most benefits," he stressed. Such are the words of a true Truth Seeker. Faith gratitude and loyalty to one's teacher are doubtless, cardinal virtues of a devout student. But should a Dhamma sibling be accused of unfaithfulness (or "spiritual adultery", to coin a new term) and snubbed for having the guts to try another alternative that may very well prove to be more suitable than the Dhamma family's usual method of practice? There is a great deal of subjectivity involved in walking the path to liberation. What is suitable for one may not be so for another. "One man’s meat is another man's poison" may be a mundane English saying, but its message reverberates through the Tipitaka and its exegetical literature as well as among yogis of all traditions and ages. Most of us would be quite familiar with the story of Ven Sariputta's newly ordained student (found in the Commentary on the Dhammapada verse #285) who struggled in vain with an unsuitable medi tation subject until the Buddha came to the rescue. He was, it seems, a goldsmith's son. Observing that he was still in his robust youth, Ven Sariputta, the Buddha's foremost disciple in great wisdom, gave him asubha (loathsomeness of the body) meditation to subdue lustful thoughts that he could be prone to. It was a disastrous diagnosis, which goes to prove that even arahants (liberated person who has eradicated all mental defilements) are human enough to err. Throughout the vassa (rainy season retreat of three months' duration), one-pointedness of mind eluded him. His mind simply did not want to concentrate on the loathsome subject. After four months of coaching and persistent striving, both teacher and student were exhausted. Ven Sariputta, with all his intelligence and wisdom, could not figure out what was wrong. Finally he took him to see the Buddha. Through his psychic insight into others' inclinations and proclivities, the Buddha perceived that this new monk had been born in a goldsmith's family not only in this existence, but for the last 500 lifetimes! The poor novice was absolutely repelled by such a gross subject because he had been used to working with refined, beautiful objects of gold. It was obvious why his mind could not concentrate on the asubha meditation. Realising that a pleasant meditation subject would be suitable for him, the Buddha created a huge golden lotus with drops of water dripping from its petals and stalk. "Here, take this to the fringe of the monastery, erect it on a heap of sand and meditate on it," he said. The monk's eyes lit up with pleasure when he saw the beautiful golden lotus in the Buddha's hand. He reached out for it and his mind was immediately absorbed in the golden lotus. Following the Buddha’s instructions, he progressively attained and mastered the four jhanas (states of meditative concentration) in a single sitting. The Buddha then made the lotus wilt and fade in front of him. At that moment, the new monk realised impermanence and he attained enlightenment when he heard the Buddha's words, projected through psychic power from afar: Pluck off one's attachment Like the autumnal lotus with the hand Just develop the Path to Peace -- Nibbana, preached by the Buddha. DHAMMAPADA 285 Dogmatic Theravada meditators should be asked, "Under which of the 40 objects of meditation described in the Visuddhimagga can this golden lotus be classified? Can it be ascertained that he went through the classical 16 stages of insight knowledge? Did he directly perceive the cause-and effect connection of his past lives before he qualified to attain maggaphala (path and fruition of enlightenment )? It can be argued that individuals during the Buddha’s time had superior paramis (perfections of spiritual virtues), so they could break all the rules and still attain enlightenment; whereas lesser mortals like us shall have to trudge every inch of the way just to get a glimpse of Nibbana. With all humility, we may have to admit that we have inferior parami credentials. But who on earth has the audacity to determine which method is best for an individual when even Ven Sariputta, the Buddha's wisest disciple, could prescribe a wrong subject? "I tell you, Ashin Phayah (Burmese word roughly meaning 'Venerable'), all of them lure [their students] according to their respective inclinations. Consider for example, Ven Ananda's case. The scriptures say that he attained arahantship (total liberation from all defilements) while he was practising kiiyagatiisati (mindfulness established in respect of the body). Teachers from the Mahasi tradition would of course assert that he was noting the movements of his body as he was lying down. Teachers who favour anapanassati would, instead, suggest that he was observing his breath at that time. 'He must have been contemplating one of the thirty-two parts of the body,' asubha enthusiasts would insist. None of them can be proven wrong because the term 'kayagatasati' can refer to any of those meditations. This is only one example, mind you. The scriptures are full of ambiguities like that," disclosed Hman Taung Forest Sayadaw. "They're all so eloquent and convincing; we don't really know whom to believe or not to believe. In the end, it's the actual practice -- the direct, personal experience -- that matters most," he continued. "After trying out so many different methods, what do I conclude? Each may start differently, but eventually they all end up doing the same thing - observing the arising and passing away of mental and material phenomena. The clarity and subtlety of the perception, of course, depends on the strength and intensity of one's concentration. " During the Buddha's time, monks of different clans, castes, districts and countries stayed and meditated together in one monastery, living in harmony and in accordance with the Dhamma Vinaya. But not all of them were meditating on the same type of meditation. One might be practising mettabhavana (development of loving-kindness), another anapanassati, and yet another contem plating the four great elements. Others might be practising more than just one type of meditation. For instance, Ven Rahula, the Buddha's son, at one time was given six different subjects of meditation: thirty-two parts of the body, five elements, four divine abodes, asubha, imper manence and anapanassati. (Maharahulovada Sutta, MN 62). As the Omniscient One was still alive, monks were prescribed the meditation subjects most suitable for each individual. Our story of Ven Sariputta's student is just one of the many cases where monks who were given inappropriate meditation subjects by their teachers struggled in vain until the Buddha came to the rescue. The Visuddhimagga and other commentaries also discuss at length the subject of suitability, not only confined to meditation subjects, but covering other areas such as food, posture, climate, lodging and Dhamma talk as well. All this points to the fact that there is a great deal of subjectivity involved in the practice for liberation. Starting off on the spiritual path on the wrong foot could have far reaching consequences. Imagine what could have happened to the ex- goldsmith monk if the Buddha had not intervened. In my association with yogis and meditation teachers of various traditions, I've met and heard of many yogis who got on the right footing only after they had tried other methods without much success. If we know that a Dhamma sibling has dis covered a new method of practice different from ours that is conducive to clarity of mind, freedom from the Hindrances (nivarana) and deepening of insight, what should we do? Would it be to anyone's advantage to ostracize him or her out of loyalty to the good old teacher or to the Dhamma family's usual method of practice? Why can't we maintain the spirit of liberality prevalent during the Buddha's time ? Even the venerables Sariputta, Moggallana and Ananda would send their students to one another for training. Why don’t we hear of students exchange programmes, e.g. between the Mahasi, Goenka and Pa Auk traditions? Why can't we live in harmony and with mutual understanding, respect and support within our own organisation or society even though we may be practising different methods of meditation? The handful of leaves given to us by the Buddha may be insignificant compared to the bountiful leaves of knowledge and information available to us today. But the wonder of that little handful is that it can be so varied, so versatile, so readily customised, and so effective -- if only we allow ourselves the freedom to choose and experiment. If only we are humble enough to admit the limitations of our knowledge and experience. If only we are discreet enough when commenting on other’s meditative experiences that are beyond our ken. If only we are tolerant and understanding enough to encourage our Dhamma siblings to try another path that is different from ours. If only we have enough unconditional love to rejoice in the success achieved through the Pa Auk method by a long-time Mahasi yogi. If only we know how to cope with just a handful of variegated leaves. Mutual support, understanding and respect, and unity in diversity are essential virtues that will help to nurture our practice while we walk on the spiritual path together. As a minority in a Muslim country, and even among the Malaysian Buddhist community, we Theravadins can no longer afford to be further decimated by our petty dogmatic differences, opinionated assertions and partisan loyalties. To react emotionally or behave judgmentally towards our Dhamma siblings who have found their mecca in the "opposite camp" may well cause an obstruction to their spiritual progress and well being. It may also undermine our own precious fraternity, strength, unity, and direction as the privileged heirs of our Master's handful of leaves, given without a closed fist. Copy Right Issues © What-Buddha-Taught.net
a Handful of Leaves
SASANARAKKHA BUDDHIST SANCTUARY C/o 28 & 30,
1st Floor Jalan Medan Taiping 4
Medan Taiping 34000 Taiping
T. 05 8084429
F. 05 8084423
E. [email protected]
W. http//www.sasanarakkha.org
Editor-in-chief: Looi Sow Fei
Sub-editors: Ven Kumara Bhikkhu, Ang Siew Mun, Audrey Lim, Khor Siew Hun, Seow Siew Hoon
Proofreaders: Lim Chin Meh, Lim Lay Hoon, Lim Lay Poh, Maxine Cheong
Photo credits:
Layout and cover design: Jotika, Sukhi Hotu
Copyright @ Sasanarakkha Buddhist Sanctuary July 2004
Source : Coping with a Handful of Leaves booklet
http://www.sasanarakkha.org
Originally posted by zero thought:Originally, there wasn't and any Theravada or Mahayana, it was just "The Buddha's Teachings".
Like what AEN mentioned, the ability to receive and accept the Buddha's teachings depend on conditions. If everything is put in one canon, beings whose conditions for the Mahayana has not ripen see the teachings, they will not be able to accept the teachings. If a student do not believe in 1 teaching of a teacher, will there be a higher tendency for the student to doubt the other teachings? Things have to be revealed according to conditions, if conditions are not right, throwing everything out will not help but may in fact hinder the situation.
To understand this point, you will have to read the Pureland Sutras and their commentaries. The Pure Land is not like our turbid world with all kind of impurities and stuff to distract us and dull our minds. The environment there is very conducive and beings in the Pureland only progress forward to Buddhahood, they don't get lazy and slacken off in practice.There are many birds (from the transformations of Amitabha Buddha), wonderous music, etc. in the Pureland that are constantly speaking the dharma to the beings there and hence the beings there are constantly mindful of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. If they are constantly mindful of the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, how can they commit evil out of ignorance?
there lies the inconsistency here. Mahayana sutra taught the Buddha taught Amitabha Sutra, why then pureland was not established in India at that time when the Buddha was around. second, if conditions were not ripe then, then why did the Buddha taught it? on the conditions issue, it was the commentary by masters, but not by the Buddha. dun tell me the masters were at the same level as the Buddha. I am just puzzled if conditions were not ripe, he will surely say so and predict in so and so period, there will be the appearance of zen, mahayana in future, but he didnt said so. since he is omniscient, surely he would have forsaw that.
My concern is this. since Buddha did not appoint any successor and taught to his disciples to let the dhamma and discipline to be your master. so the dhamma taught by the masters later on, do we recognise it as the dhamma which would have been taught by the Buddha himself? unless u deem the masters as pusa.
Originally posted by Rooney9:there lies the inconsistency here. Mahayana sutra taught the Buddha taught Amitabha Sutra, why then pureland was not established in India at that time when the Buddha was around.
Shakyamuni Buddha is the one who told us about Amitabha Buddha. Amitabha Buddha established the Western Pureland a long time ago, even before Shakyamuni appeared here on Earth to teach us. I don't know how this issue is connected with India.
Originally posted by Rooney9:second, if conditions were not ripe then, then why did the Buddha taught it?
If the Buddha did not say the teachings and get it recorded down back then, he will have to stay here on Earth for hundreds of years until sentient beings conditions were ripened to teach. But we all know the Buddha manifested parinirvana way long ago before the conditions were ripen.
Originally posted by Rooney9:on the conditions issue, it was the commentary by masters, but not by the Buddha. dun tell me the masters were at the same level as the Buddha. I am just puzzled if conditions were not ripe, he will surely say so and predict in so and so period, there will be the appearance of zen, mahayana in future, but he didnt said so. since he is omniscient, surely he would have forsaw that.
The Mahayana sutras were spokened by Shakyamuni Buddha and recorded down. If not they will not have the words "Thus I have heard". The Buddha instructed that all Sutras he spoke should begin with the four words "Thus I have heard" - which means "The Dharma which is Thus can be believed. I personally heard it." Hence the Mahayana teachings are most certainly true.
Originally posted by Rooney9:My concern is this. since Buddha did not appoint any successor and taught to his disciples to let the dhamma and discipline to be your master. so the dhamma taught by the masters later on, do we recognise it as the dhamma which would have been taught by the Buddha himself? unless u deem the masters as pusa.
As above said, Mahayana Sutras begin with "Thus I have heard" when Ananda recalled the teachings from memory, hence they were spoken by the Buddha himself and not some other person. There are six requirements that prove a sutra was spoken by the Buddha - faith, hearing, time, host, place, and audience.
For example in the Amitabha Sutra:
"Thus" is the requirement of faith,
"I have heard" is the requirement of hearing,
"At one time" is the requirement of time,
"The Buddha: is the requirement of a host,
"dwelt at Sravasti, in the Jeta Grove, in the Garden of the Benefactor of Orphans and the Solitary" is the requirement of a place,
"together with a gathering of great Bhikshus, twelve hundred fifty in all, all great Arhats whom the assembly knew and recognized...and together with Shakra, chief among gods, and the numberless great multitudes from all the heavens." is the requirement of an audience.
This shows that the Sutra was spoken by the Buddha and not anyone else.
Also the Mahayana Sutras have been passed down for ages, with many Great patriachs and lay people achieving liberation from samsara based on them. How then can they be false? Words of a few ordinary unenlightened people should not cause us to doubt the Mahayana Sutras which the sages of the past had used as a ferry.
Originally posted by Rooney9:the issue is if u are unenlightened, you can create alot of problems for urself even if u r in heaven. same when these people go to pureland. due to their ignorance, what makes you think they will practise and be good.
good point! now the question is, will they bring their ignorance to pureland?
Originally posted by Rooney9:fair enough, but then it doesnt state why it was not included in the theravada canon in the first council. I am not siding theravada or anything, I just want to establish the facts.
masters? are they as the same level as the Buddha? what about Namdrol then? I was wondering if the Buddha did forsee this? did he mentioned anything on this? The Buddha, during his 45 years of teaching, I was wondering why did he hold back on this?
I am not anti Mahayana, dun get me wrong. someone told me something, which is highly controversial, which If I post it here, will create alot of ruckus and endless debate. Buddha Amitabha, Guan Shi Yin Pusa and Lotus Sutra was not included in the Theravada canon. If it was taught by the historical Buddha, there should be included in.
talking about canons, even among the mahayana canons, there are things in the tibetan one that is left out in the chinese one and so on for the japanese and other canons... these are caused by human factors... it is not proof that the Buddha did not talk about them.
why don't you try to do more practice... from your own practice, you can clarify all these for yourself in a much deeper way. rather than hearing endlessly from the opinions of many people, it will only make you more indecisive... right? And actually in the ultimate end, Buddha, sentient beings, you and I etc. are not REAL from own side. We have heard this so many times right, and yet we are still trying to find out real and false. Trying to use delusion to find truth, that is always the sentient beings' problem isn't it?
Another point of view is that since so many people have faith in Amitabha and Guan Yin Pusa, it is not important whether which canon mentioned them or not... they are objects of faith and they will work from the devotees' POV... the mind is very powerful... and all phenomena comes from mind.