I read in a book that arhat still have Fazhi(dharma attachment).
The have no self attachment but still have dharma attachment, what does It mean?
Arhat achieved elimination of afflictions of views and thought �� , but has yet to attain elimination of afflictions of "dusts & sands" among others.
can look for pudgalanairatmya & dharmanairatmya.
From these descriptions it is found natural for Mahayanists psychologically to deny the existence of an ego-soul or ego-substance in the Alaya, and ontologically to insist that the tragedy of life comes from believing in the substantiality or finality of an individual object. The former is technically called the doctrine of Pudgalanairatmya, egolessness of persons,1 and the latter that of Dharmanairatmya, egolessness of things; the one denies the reality of an ego-soul and the other the ultimacy of an individual object.
http://www.openbuddha.com/resources/sutras/lankavatara-sutra/
"dharma" here mean phenomena.
/\
http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/221075
archive posting.
egolessness or selflessness of person (Skt. pudgalanairatmya) This doctrine asserts that when one examines or looks for the person, one finds that it is empty. The person does not possess a self (Skt. atman, Tib. bdag-nyid) as an independent or substantial self. This position is held by most Buddhist schools.
egolesseness or selflessness of phenomena (Skt. dharma-nairatmya) This doctrine aserts than not only is there selflessness of person, but when one examines out phenomena, one finds that this external phenomena is also empty, i. e. it does not have an independent or substantial nature. This position is not held by the hinayana schools, but is put forth by the mahayana schools, particularly the Chittamatra school.
http://www.rinpoche.com/glossary.htm
mahayana aim to understand selflessness of phenomena which when understood, selflessness of person is also accomplished. that's to say having understood selflessness of person might not accomplish selflessness of phenomena.--mck
read also the Origin and development of the concept of emptiness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
/\
how come that be? if yo have attachment even towards the dhamma, you will not attain enlightenment
i think arahat attained selflessness of person, they achieve nirvana/enlightenment, sort of leave samsara already. bodhisattva on the other hand need to stay in samsara to help beings, hence they postpone their nirvana/enlightenment. then to stay in samsara, they need selflessness of phenomena, to get them through the difficuties of suffering in samsara.
/\
Sabbe Dhamma Anatta
"All conditioned things are impermanent. All conditioned things are suffering. All dhammas (all things conditioned and unconditioned) are anatta".
http://what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Ajahn_Brahm_ANATTA.htm
/\
so does it make arhats less compassionate?
It does not make an Arahant any less compassionate. The reason an Arahant is considered spiritually less advanced than a Bodhisattva by the Mahayanist, is on the ground that, as their spiritual cultivation is for self advancement only, there is still some residue of a ‘self’ in them. This is unlike a Bodhisattva, whose cultivation is based on the well-being of all sentient beings.
make no mistake, the knowledge, perfections and skills gained by arhats and Bodhisatvva are vastly different. The Bodhisatvva has to practise many eons so that he is ready to be a Sammasam Buddha to reveal and teach the world when the time for him to be a Buddha.
arhats no need to spend so many aeons practising perfections unlike the Bodhisatvva. However that is not to say arhats path is any easier. Buddha once remarked, when he saw a group of ants and said thus. A few Buddhas have come to this earth, they have been ants since.
arhat with great compassion are known in Mahayanist, as Great Arahat 大阿罗汉. the term arhat sort of mean "no more learning" or "graduated" in Buddha's native language. can say arahat "graduated" from 6 realms. Great Arahat graduated from Mahayana is out of the 10 realms. fyi.
/\
《å�Žä¸¥ç»�》上所说的ç�†æ— ç¢�ã€�äº‹æ— ç¢�ã€�ç�†äº‹æ— ç¢�ã€�äº‹äº‹æ— ç¢�,å››æ— ç¢�法界。
the 4 Dharmadhatu kind of explain how selflessness of phenomena work in 4 different levels. the final level is the most difficult to understand. äº‹äº‹æ— ç¢�. those who reached this level do not judge between good or bad. to them good is good. bad is also good. this is the realm of non-obstruction between All phenomena.
时时是好时,日日是好日,人人是好人,事事是好事 :)
The Four Dharmadhatu (Chinese: 四法界), is a philosophical concept propagated by Master Tu-shun (Chinese: æ�œé †; 557-640 CE).[1] It builds upon and is a variant of the Dharmadhatu doctrine. Tu-shun is the founder of Hua-yan (Chinese: è�¯åš´) school. The Four Dharmadhatu were outlined in Tu-shun's treatise which has been rendered into English as 'On the Meditation of DharmadhÄ�tu'. The Four Dharmadhatu are:
- The Dharmadh�tu of 'Shih' (Chinese: 事法界; "shi fajie"). 'Shih' is a rendering of the character 事 which holds the semantic field: "matter", "phenomenon", "event". It may be understood as the 'realm' (Sanskrit: dh�tu) of all matters and phenomena.
- The Dharmadh�tu of 'Li'(Chinese: �法界; "li fajie"). 'Li' is a rendering of the character � which holds the semantic field: "principle", "law", "noumenon". This 'realm' (Sanskrit: dh�tu) may be understood as that of principles. It has been referred to as "the realm of the one principle". The "one principle" being qualified as śūnyat� (Sanskrit).[2]
- The Dharmadh�tu of Non-obstruction of 'Li' against 'Shih' (Chinese: �事無礙法界; "lishi wuai fajie"). This 'realm' (Sanskrit: dh�tu) has been rendered into English as "the realm of non-obstruction between principle and phenomena".[3]
- The Dharmadh�tu of the Non-obstruction of 'Shih' and 'Shih' (Chinese: 事事無礙法界; "shishi wuai fajie"). This 'realm' (Sanskrit: dh�tu) has been rendered into English as "the realm of non-obstruction between phenomena".[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dharmadh%C4%81tu
/\
äº‹äº‹æ— ç¢� non-obstruction between phenomena
THE WHOLE ONE
When master Du Shun was asked “Are everything exist?”, he answered “No, everything are empty, do not have their original nature, because everything arise depending on conditions”. Asked “So everything should be empty and not exist?”, answered “Also no, because everything have been existing ever since beginningless time”. Asked, “In this case, everything are exist and also empty?”, answered “No, [the exist] and [the empty] already become ONE, there is no dualistic appearance, just like gold and gold product are the same originally”. Asked, “So everything must be [not exist] and [not empty]?”, answered, “No, not like that, we can say that everything is exist and also empty, because of that, everything can exist simultaneously without interfering with one another”. Asked, “Everything that arise depending on conditions must be empty eventually?”, answered “Also no, because The Exist and The empty are mixed together, and all lose their own appearance, therefore everything do not exist anymore”.
The point for the above conversation is that master Du Shun always change his standpoint for answering the questions. We can say that master Du Shun does not have any standpoint, or he does not persist in his own opinions, or his answers are from the standpoint of the WHOLE ONE.
IF we think deeper for those all “NO” answers, the real intention of master Du Shun was trying to help [the questioner] to get rid of persisting in all kinds of passions. Because the “NO” is the sign for all negatives, the “NO” is also close to the “Empty’ too.
There was an old monk sitting in the room, doing nothing with one of his students standing behind him. Two of his students, student A and B were arguing about something outside the room, after a while, student A rushed into the room, giving the description of the argument to the old monk, and asking “Master, am I right?”, the old monk answering “You are right”, student A rushing to student B who is outside the room, few minutes later, student B also rushing to the room and giving his opinion about the argument to the old monk, and asking the same question “Master, am I right?”, the old monk answering “You are right”, student B so happy and leaving the room, in this moment the student behind the old monk asking the old monk with whispering voice “Master, if A is right, B must be wrong, if B is right, A must be wrong, how come they are all [right]?”, the old monk answering “You are right too”.
Because the old monk is already the WHOLE ONE, he can accept all kinds of opinions - he can also give negative answers to his students like “You are wrong”.
~Hank Fu