Unorthodox Ideas

[viniketa]

... thanks to Astus for an interesting post. Lots of nice ideas expressed therein.

Seconded!

In general, the contents of this thread and others point to confounding and conflation of both conventional terms used to describe experiential states and those used to describe linear 'steps' of instruction given in various teachings. Further, 'Buddhahood' is one of the worst terms that can be slung around in that it gives the impression that 'being in the neighborhood' of a Buddha is the same as being (or becoming) a Buddha. I'm aware of discussions about 'impermanent' and 'permanent' so-called buddhahood, however, a true Buddha moves between such 'states' at will, so those designations become misleading.

Using more precise terms -- for example, Sanskrit terms, as suggested by Joyti -- helps to avoid such confounded meanings.

In the end (or the beginning), one is either a Buddha or one is not. If one is a Buddha, one has no need for such designations as 'inferior' or 'superior'.

Of course, I am not a Buddha, but it is still unworthy of those who seek to become a Buddha to resort to such designations (and to personal comments about other posters).

[Jnana]

I suggest you sharpen your knowledge of the Buddhadharma. These are the kinds of statements that make the vajrayāna look ridiculous in the eyes of many.

This is pretty ironic coming from you.

Yes, well, be that as it may, what I was tacitly implying was that most every tradition that has come along in Buddhist history has at some point succumbed to the base urge to stereotype the ideal practitioners of every other tradition that went before it (e.g. arhats or bodhisattvas) as their half-retarded second cousins, while at the same time usually trying to exempt old man Śākyamuni from being subject to that same derision.

[catmoon]

Emptiness is a central concept, so to speak, in Buddhism. I find nothing unorthodox in thinking that.

[Astus]

Comments regarding well known ideas how arhats are inferior to bodhisattvas, bodhisattvas to buddhas, sutrayana to vajrayana, well, those are just repetitions but not arguments. They are statements that you don't agree with the conclusion, which is fine, but it fails to consider all the points that led to the conclusion. Therefore, it does not address the issue raised.

Those who raised issues about different realisations, please consider points 1 and 3 in the OP first. To put it briefly, there is only one suchness to be realised and there can't be more than that. Not grasping a single view can't be diversified into different forms of non-attachment. At the same time, if there is any clinging, there is still suffering and no liberation of any kind.

There is the difference made between emptiness of person and emptiness of phenomena. This is then related to removing emotional and cognitive obscurations. The first means seeing that there is no self but only the five aggregates, the second is that the five aggregates are also without identity. This, however, is a methodical difference only. Why? Not grasping a self means not being attached to any of the aggregates. Not clinging to aggregates is their emptiness realised. Regarding this see Mulamadhyamakakarika, chapter 18, and the Khandhavagga (SN 22; or just suttas 1, 47, 95 in that section).

If we see the understanding of emptiness, there are 2 things:
1. Understanding the nature as what it is.
2. Understanding how the nature can appear as such.

This is separating emptiness and appearances, impermanence and dependent origination, essence and function. Such a separation is valid for gradual intellectual understanding and faults of grasping emptiness as a thing and falling into carelessness. Not valid for genuine insight that is referred to here.

[DarwidHalim]

We cannot separate this topic with the 10 bhumis of Chandrakirti.

There is a discussion for example that arhat does know the emptiness of phenomena, which is knowing the emptiness of aggregates.

He know that aggregates are empty. And the teaching of emptiness bring them up to that level.

However, arhat does not have the ability to see the absence of characteristics. He can see the absence of self, but not characterictics.

He can see flower is absence or empty of self. But, in post meditation he cannot see that there is no flower as the absence of characteristic. He doesn't have this ability to see the absence of flower. therefore, he always create this imprint of character.

Boddhisattva at sixth bhumi, also doesn't have this ability to see the absence of characteristic and still create this imprints.

Only at level 7, bodhisattva can stop create this imprint, but he cannot stop the appearance of this imprint.

From pransangika point of view, these 4 views are absence (Please note there is no fifth view):
1. Existence
2. Non existence
3. Existence and non existence
4. Neither existence nor non existence.

These 4 views are absence for Buddha.

Arhat only has the absence of no. 1 and half of no. 2.

You may think that it is impossible that the view of emptiness of arhat can be different with the view of Buddha or high Boddhisattva.

But the fact that they can reject the Mahayana sutra, is the sign that the don't understand Mahayana sutta. If they can see the teachings are somehow distorted, it really shows it doesn't match with their realization. So you can understand from here that, there are indeed discrepancy.

There are statement such as I see anger, but I don't pick it up. He can see absence of self both in person and phenomena (anger) , but

He still see that as anger. And that is character that he doesn't have the ability to be absence with.

Boddhisattva level 6 still have same issue. Only at 7, the appearance of anger is no longer seen as anger, as appearance, or as any possible words. At level 7, they no longer create new imprints, but the old imprint may still appear.

If you tell arhat, there is no path, probably they will tell you are extremist. This is because they dont see the absence of character.

The teaching of Mahamudra and dzogchen will Not be accepted by them, not because of the absence of self, but the issue is with the absence of characteristics.

You can tell them, there are no aggregates, no feeling, no perception, etc.
They will say they are just absence of them. But there such character.

They will never accept there are no aggregates, no feelings, no perception and so on. For them that is nihilism, while actually that is not what it means. The meaning of no feeling is the absence of both self and character.

Although they will see the absence of self in aggregates, but they will always see aggregates as aggregates. This is what block them for omniscience.

[Jnana]

Comments regarding well known ideas how arhats are inferior to bodhisattvas, bodhisattvas to buddhas, sutrayana to vajrayana, well, those are just repetitions but not arguments. They are statements that you don't agree with the conclusion, which is fine, but it fails to consider all the points that led to the conclusion. Therefore, it does not address the issue raised.

With regard to the points in your OP, the situation is even more widespread than that, and includes claims that bodhiattvas are inferior to siddhas, or that the followers of the treatise schools are inferior to channists, or that channists are inferior to mahāyoga tantrikas, etc.

Behind all of these claims we find a long history of written records (sūtras, tantras, treatises, etc.) with pervasive supersessionist themes and triumphalist rhetoric aimed at criticizing and often times denigrating everyone in the greater Buddhist community who wasn't a part of that particular movement.

And with regard to the subitist and tantric movements in particular, we have significant reinventions of the path that stand in opposition to all mainstream developments. The understanding that the bodhisattva path is a very, very long and arduous one is ubiquitous throughout the thought-world of the Jātakas, Avadānas, and Mahāyāna Sūtras. Given the numerous narratives in these sources, exclusivist claims of possessing a quick path employing either special insight or special means that entirely dispenses with the hardships of the Buddha's own bodhisattva journey over the course of many, many births are rather absurd.

[DarwidHalim]

The discussion of arhat and Boddhisattva sometime can bring a sense of Mahayana undermine theravada. But actually that is not the case. Because we have to remember that although arhat compassion and wisdom is like the drop of water and the compassion and wisdom of Boddhisattva is like the 4 oceans,

When we are compared to arhat, our compassion and wisdom is just like the drop of water, and compassion and wisdom of arhat is like the 4 oceans.

If we can become arhat, this is already a very very great achievement. We even don't know whether we can or not.

[Astus]

DarwidHalim,

All three doors of liberation are known to arhats, and that includes signlessness (SN 40.9). As a sutta (AN 6.13) says, "Don't misrepresent the Blessed One, for it's not right to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the Blessed One wouldn't say that. It's impossible, there is no way that — when the signless has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken as an awareness-release — consciousness would follow the drift of signs. That possibility doesn't exist, for this is the escape from all signs: the signless as an awareness-release.'"

I agree that Mahayana scriptures and treatises say that sravakas realise only the emptiness of self. The definition I have referred to already, so I'm not debating it at all. What I say is that this is only a methodical difference, because the early texts, especially abhidharma works, teach insight meditation primarily by analysing seemingly simple phenomena into parts to highlight their constructed nature. Like for your example of flower, it is not really a flower but only form elements. And then phenomenal emptiness means that even form elements are constructed, they are unreal, only nominal. This is, however, is confirmed in the early works by agreeing that the form elements are constructed, and that they cease in nirvana. Otherwise we would have to say that an arhat, instead of thinking that the body is the self, thinks that the elements are the self, which is nonsense. More on the point that arhats realise the selflessness of phenomena see Wangchuk Dorje's reasonings and quotations in his commentary on the Madhyamakavatara, chapter on the first bhumi (The Karmapa's Middle Way, p. 107-112).

Clinging to any of the four extreme views means having a wrong view and being bound to samsara. If arhats were attached to the view of non-existence, they would be annihilationists, which excludes even ordinary men from correct understanding, not to mention noble ones.

As for the rejection of Mahayana sutras, it is a questionable statement. First of all, in the agamas and nikayas there is no mention of Mahayana works, so rejection of them is not possible. Beyond that, how many arhats do you know who refuted Mahayana sutras? As for doctrinal debates, you have plenty of them within Mahayana itself.

[DarwidHalim]

For the practitioner who can see the truth in Mahayana, I don't see they have problems. But they are those hard liners that discount the number of suttas to just Pali version.

I told you before that arhat does see emptiness of phenomena, but from the intrinsic aspect, not characteristic aspect.

When you say form, you are seeing characters.

Even you see something as mere appearances, that is character.

And that should be absent as well.

[Astus]

Jnana,

So did Yinshun emphasise the early Mahayana view of a long path and criticised all the later ideas of instant methods. If I take this a little further - while I'm not very familiar with Yinshun's teachings - it is as he quotes Taixu in Human Centered Buddhism (p. 48) that "Chinese Buddhism has been speaking the Mahayana doctrines and yet practicing the Hinayana way.", this applies to all who say there is liberation close at hand. In fact, if we can say that many Mahayana ideas were already present in mainstream schools like the Dharmaguptaka, Mahasanghika, etc., then it is the sravakayana everywhere in shiny buddha robes. But this is just a side note here. Unlike Yinshun, I prefer the idea of a single vehicle, where the paths are not separate or hierarchical, but provisional in form and one in nature.

DarwidHalim,

Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche's book is wonderful. And if you think about sravakas in such texts not as some followers of this or that school, but as clearly wrong interpretations of people, it turns out that such criticisms have meaning and they are meant for the present audience.

Do you mean that an arhat sees that ultimately flowers are empty, it's just that he still thinks there is a real relative flower? If so, that's a faulty interpretation of emptiness, or rather a linguistic sophistry. You know the Zen story of Shakyamuni raising the flower and not saying anything. Did he or did he not grasp the flower? If he grasped it, do you think it was because of seeing characters? If he did not grasp it, how was it possible for him to raise the flower? To hold on to the idea that every experience are just illusion, that is indeed wrong. But if arhats are attached to such a concept, it means their failure to see the emptiness of concepts, and that means attachment to mental aggregates. Thus liberation is not possible for them.

[viniketa]

... arhat does see emptiness of phenomena, but from the intrinsic aspect, not characteristic aspect.

I would like to know the source of this statement if possible, please.

Also, for those who think this idea of different 'introduction' methods is something 'new' appearing only in Mahayāna, please consult the Vitthaa Sutta (AN 4.162 - 4.165):

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[DarwidHalim]

You have to see from Pali text itself, in Pali text, it is indeed mentioned that arhat doesn't have a power similar to Buddha.

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha335.htm

So, Pali sutta clearly indicate that arhat is missing something. If you don't miss something, your power cannot be less than Buddha.

But, some practitioner said that arhat is exactly equivalent to Buddha. Then when it is ask that if arhat is exactly same with Buddha why the power can be different?

The typical reply is it is not necessary that power can become the reason why arhat is different with Buddha, because arhat realize Boddhi.

This is exactly the place where for Mahayana, the realization of Boddhi is just the realization of empty of inherent existence, empty of self, but not absence of characteristic.

We do not need a rocket science here. If arhat power is less than Buddha. Something must be missing.

And you should note not all Theravada practitioner accept that arhat = Buddha. From bhikku Boddhi article you should be able to see that he doesn't share that view.

Another aspect is you quote from Mahamudra: moonlight. If you continue to read until the chapter that talk about 4 yoga in Mahamudra, the third yoga is one taste , the fourth is no meditation.

Tashi namgyal actually said (which I can't remember the page) that it is extremely extremely difficult to go to the fourth yoga - no meditation. He said something like even this xxxx said he can only achieve yoga of one taste.

It is really not an easy way to be absence from character.

Let's say you are male.

Dzongsar tinpot he said that if I ask you to think you are a woman from tomorrow onwards, although you know man and woman essentially no difference, it is very very difficult. It is easier to teach a baby who is male and tell him you are woman, then tell you, you are woman tomorrow.

You should see here, it is already has nothing to do with the emptiness of self, because you can see they are empty of self. Can you can feel how difficult it is to even think you are a woman tomorrow?

This is because you have a very deep imprint about character.

This is what we call eliminating the smell. Cleaning the dirt is far easier than cleaning the smell.

When you see something, like flower, may be you can see oh now I can see that it is just appearance. But if you go to the next step where even don't see that as just appearance, it is extremely difficult.

There is a reason why tashi namgyal said go to one taste is already very good, not to mention No meditation.

It is not dangerous not able to see the absence of characteristic, you just don't have perfect omniscience.

You also cannot see the practice of Theravada and compare it with Mahamudra and dzogchen. In this lineage we are, watch out, they are such issue. So, you are in better position to learn to be free from character.

But in Theravada, you don't have this kind of thing. May be you are very good, so in your practice you can get deeper and see this issue and you can eliminate the characteristic. In this way, I don't say that you can't become a buddha from Theravada teaching, but it will be very tough, because you may not aware of such thing. If you can, probably it is by accident, due to your exceptional sharpness.

For the rest, Buddha must knock your head, wake up, not complete yet.

[DarwidHalim]

... arhat does see emptiness of phenomena, but from the intrinsic aspect, not characteristic aspect.

I would like to know the source of this statement if possible, please.

Also, for those who think this idea of different 'introduction' methods is something 'new' appearing only in Mahayāna, please consult the Vitthaa Sutta (AN 4.162 - 4.165):

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

You can see from the link free Chandrakirti ebook, which I posted yesterday.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

And with regard to the subitist and tantric movements in particular, we have significant reinventions of the path that stand in opposition to all mainstream developments. The understanding that the bodhisattva path is a very, very long and arduous one is ubiquitous throughout the thought-world of the Jātakas, Avadānas, and Mahāyāna Sūtras.

Vajrayana IS the mainstream. It was taught at Nalanda, Vikramshila etc.. Keep in mind that Vajrayana is merely late phase Mahayana, that Buddhists overzealously self-labelled as something else.

Also Indo-Tibetan Vajrayana is based on Madhyamaka view. Madhyamaka is pretty mainstream. You can't say that about Theravadins who follow crypto-realist Abhidharma etc.

Given the numerous narratives in these sources, exclusivist claims of possessing a quick path employing either special insight or special means that entirely dispenses with the hardships of the Buddha's own bodhisattva journey over the course of many, many births are rather absurd.

The absurd thing is that you never heard of the Mahasiddhas, who are also Buddhas, and achieved Buddhahood in one lifetime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasiddha

[pueraeternus]

With regard to the points in your OP, the situation is even more widespread than that, and includes claims that bodhiattvas are inferior to siddhas, or that the followers of the treatise schools are inferior to channists, or that channists are inferior to mahāyoga tantrikas, etc.

Behind all of these claims we find a long history of written records (sūtras, tantras, treatises, etc.) with pervasive supersessionist themes and triumphalist rhetoric aimed at criticizing and often times denigrating everyone in the greater Buddhist community who wasn't a part of that particular movement.

And with regard to the subitist and tantric movements in particular, we have significant reinventions of the path that stand in opposition to all mainstream developments. The understanding that the bodhisattva path is a very, very long and arduous one is ubiquitous throughout the thought-world of the Jātakas, Avadānas, and Mahāyāna Sūtras. Given the numerous narratives in these sources, exclusivist claims of possessing a quick path employing either special insight or special means that entirely dispenses with the hardships of the Buddha's own bodhisattva journey over the course of many, many births are rather absurd.

I second this. It seems a lot of the enlightenment-in-one-life praxis are a case of over-zealous application and theorization of Tathagatagarbha doctrine. Not to say that the subitist and tantric techniques are not more effective for some - they often are. They are an excellent path of skillful means and technique, but declarations of attaining complete Buddhahood in a single life time is going too far.

Many of these doctrines also have a tendency to create their own mythology to create an aura of pristine authenticity, but all of them have an obvious historic process of development that undercuts their own narratives.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

but declarations of attaining complete Buddhahood in a single life time is going too far.

I can name several individuals in the last 20 years who achieved Buddhahood in one lifetime. But you are free to stay in samsara.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

There is the difference made between emptiness of person and emptiness of phenomena....

You are not arriving at the main point of Madhyamaka which is nonarising:

First, if an appearance is an existent, can it arise from another existent? Or does it arise from a non-existent? As for the first, an existent does not arise from another existent because the arising of something existent is a contradiction in terms; and the arising of an existent from a non-existent is impossible. To address this, Nāḡrjuna writes:

An existent does not arise from an existent;
an existent does not arise from a non-existent;
a non-existent does arise from an existent;
a non-existent does not arise from a non-existent —
where then can there be an instance of arising?

If the arising of existents is not established, the arising of appearances is not established. If arising is not established, remaining is not established, and likewise, perishing is not established. If the three, arising, remaining and perishing, are not established, then there is no reason to accept the charge of annihilationism since I never suggested that there was an existent entity that could perish.

All we are left with is empty appearances: they are not real because no existence, etc., can be ascertained regarding them; they are not unreal since they appear. All we can say about them is that they arise in dependence.

N

[Astus]

DarwidHalim,

In brief, it goes like this. The nikayas describe that both arhat and buddha attain the same liberation, but there are differences between arhats in terms of other abilities and the buddha is perfect in all the different abilities. Then, as understood by the early schools and early Mahayana, the special qualities of a buddha are developed on the aeons of practising the paramitas as a bodhisattva, but that attainment in terms of liberation are still the same. Then in later Mahayana with the idea of a single vehicle they created a hierarchy of liberations, at which point arhats eventually become bodhisattvas. With further development of buddha-nature concept occurred the option of a short cut path to buddhahood, thus appeared Chan and later Vajrayana. With this we come to a full circle in that the desired attainment is available in a single lifetime but now with all the special abilities.

It is on the basis of the buddha-nature teaching that it becomes possible to say that with becoming free from attachment simply by realising the nature of mind all the buddha qualities are present. This is the fundamental idea of all sudden teachings that are believed to be the ultimate and supreme methods by the majority of Mahayana followers. From this it is just one more step to say that since an arhat is free from attachment there is complete enlightenment. And this is what I did here. With this one can argue saying that arhats are not free from all attachments, practically making arhats not free from samsara but stuck in the illusion of liberation; or say that tathagatagarbha teachings are only provisional, turning sudden paths into illusory baits.

[pueraeternus]

but declarations of attaining complete Buddhahood in a single life time is going too far.

I can name several individuals in the last 20 years who achieved Buddhahood in one lifetime. But you are free to stay in samsara.

And you are free to believe what you will and enjoy the kool-aid.

[SSJ3Gogeta]

With further development of buddha-nature concept occurred the option of a short cut path to buddhahood, thus appeared Chan and later Vajrayana.

This is the first I'm hearing that Buddha Nature texts gave rise to Vajrayana.

Ronald Davidson said Madhaymaka gave rise to Vajrayana. This makes sense since tantric texts are often written in the voice of Nagarjuna, Aryadeva etc., for example:

http://www.amazon.com/Aryadevas-Lamp-In ... 0975373455