without these = no buddhadharma, right?

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

without these = no buddhadharma, right?

Postby hornets » Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:02 am

No Dependent Origination & no Anatman means no Buddhadharma, and you're probably going to be veering off towards advaita/non-duality, is this correct?

If someone just can't get on with the concepts of Dependent Origination and Anatman, is it fair to say that they're probably just not wired up for Buddhism?
hornets
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 6:42 pm

Re: without these = no buddhadharma, right?

Postby KeithBC » Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:25 am

Probably so.

On the other hand, there is plenty of room for a person to practice the ethics and meditation taught by various Buddhist schools because they are of practical value, even while rejecting those core attributes of the Dharma. But if a teacher were to teach that there was no dependent origination, I would suggest finding a new teacher.

Om mani padme hum
Keith
User avatar
KeithBC
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:22 pm
Location: East Coast of Canada

Re: without these = no buddhadharma, right?

Postby plwk » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:53 am

If this is helpful

If someone just can't get on with the concepts of Dependent Origination and Anatman, is it fair to say that they're probably just not wired up for Buddhism?
I would agree with this with one caveat: given the gradual exercise of study, practice and realisation, if one still persists in rejection of these, then perhaps, such one may want to reconsider if there are other systems of thought more conducive to oneself.
plwk
 
Posts: 2749
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am

Re: without these = no buddhadharma, right?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:54 pm

hornets wrote:No Dependent Origination & no Anatman means no Buddhadharma, and you're probably going to be veering off towards advaita/non-duality, is this correct?

If someone just can't get on with the concepts of Dependent Origination and Anatman, is it fair to say that they're probably just not wired up for Buddhism?


Depends on what tradition you belong too.

In the Pali Canon Anatman(Not-self) is viewed as suffering,what leads to suffering,and what belongs to Mara is Anatman.

In the Nirvana Sutra Anatman is viewed in the same way(i.e suffering and belonging to Mara).
And the True Self which is Buddha Nature is championed as the correct teaching/path.

Peace and Love.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 940
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: without these = no buddhadharma, right?

Postby Ayu » Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:22 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:...
In the Pali Canon Anatman(Not-self) is viewed as suffering,what leads to suffering,and what belongs to Mara is Anatman.

In the Nirvana Sutra Anatman is viewed in the same way(i.e suffering and belonging to Mara).
And the True Self which is Buddha Nature is championed as the correct teaching/path.


Sorry, this sounds quite twisted. Realistion of Anatta dissolves suffering.
And i never heard of teachings given by Mara. :sage:

On topic: Buddhadasa Bikkhu (Theravada) said: if there is no teaching about emptyness (sunatta) somewhere in the sutra, the sutra is a fake. Maybe deformed by translation.
Because, if our mothers, who have been kind to us
From beginningless time, are suffering,
What can we do with (just) our own happiness?
From 10th of 37 Bodhisattva Practices
User avatar
Ayu
 
Posts: 1051
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: without these = no buddhadharma, right?

Postby hornets » Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:46 pm

I'm confused again! :shrug:
hornets
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 6:42 pm

Re: without these = no buddhadharma, right?

Postby hornets » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:00 pm

[quote="Son of Buddha]

And the True Self which is Buddha Nature is championed as the correct teaching/path.

[/quote]

Am I right in thinking Buddha Nature is nothing like Atman or whatever it's known as in other Philosophies because it is constantly in flux so is therefore impermanent and always changing? Or something?

Apologies, I never get much chance/have any time to properly sit down and look at/study stuff like this these days.
hornets
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 6:42 pm

Re: without these = no buddhadharma, right?

Postby Ayu » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:04 pm

hornets wrote:I'm confused again! :shrug:

You think, there are only decent buddhist teachers sitting here on the other end of the wire? I'm very sorry. :smile:

You have to get informations slowly from real teachers and good books. :heart:

Maybe you can find something here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhadasa#External_links
Because, if our mothers, who have been kind to us
From beginningless time, are suffering,
What can we do with (just) our own happiness?
From 10th of 37 Bodhisattva Practices
User avatar
Ayu
 
Posts: 1051
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: without these = no buddhadharma, right?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:15 pm

Ayu wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:...
In the Pali Canon Anatman(Not-self) is viewed as suffering,what leads to suffering,and what belongs to Mara is Anatman.

In the Nirvana Sutra Anatman is viewed in the same way(i.e suffering and belonging to Mara).
And the True Self which is Buddha Nature is championed as the correct teaching/path.


Sorry, this sounds quite twisted. Realistion of Anatta dissolves suffering.
And i never heard of teachings given by Mara. :sage:

On topic: Buddhadasa Bikkhu (Theravada) said: if there is no teaching about emptyness (sunatta) somewhere in the sutra, the sutra is a fake. Maybe deformed by translation.


Sorry I was on my phone so I couldn't copy/paste/ and quote sources at that time, I can now.Here is the Info I was talking about in the Pali Canon

From Bhikkhu Bodhi Translation in book form found on PAGE 989 in the Samyutta Nikaya
in the Khandhavagga section
the Radhasamyutta chapter 2
under the 1. The First Mara Subchapter
(24 suttas where the Buddha teaches everything that belongs to Mara)

(SN 23.24)
4 (2)-34 (12) Subject to Mara, tc.

... "Radha, you should abandon desire, you should abandon lust, you should abandon desire and lust, for whatever is subject to Mara ' .. [199] ". for whatever is impermanent ... for whatever is of an impermanent nature for whatever is suffering ...
for whatever is of a painful nature for whatever is nonself ' .. for whatever is of a selfless nature ... for whatever is subject to destruction ... for whatever is subject to vanishing ... for what¬ever is subject to arising ... for whatever is subject to cessation. And what, Radha, is subject to cessation? Form is subject to ces¬sation. Feeling ... Perception ... Volitional formations ... Consciousness is subject to cessation. Seein thus ' .. He understands:
there is no more for this state of being.''

SN 22.46 Impermanent (2) pg 885
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is impermanent.... Feeling is impermanent.... Preception is impermanent.... Volitional formations are impermanent.... Consciousness is impermanent. What is Impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .mend.html
SN 22.59
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
Thus it was heard by me. At one time the Blessed One was living in the deer park of Isipatana near Benares. There, indeed, the Blessed One addressed the group of five monks.
"Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to suffering and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'

Here is quotes from the Nirvana Sutra

Chapter 8
"A person [might] say that all is non-eternal, meaning that even Nirvana is non-eternal, and the same with suffering, void, and non-self too. That is why we say that such is non-grasping of the import of the sutras. One cannot depend upon such. O good man!

Chapter 12
“Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?" The Buddha said: "O good man! "Self" means "Tathagatagarbha" [Buddha-Womb, Buddha-Embryo, Buddha-Nature]. Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the Self. Such Self has, from the very beginning, been under cover of innumerable defilements.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 940
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: without these = no buddhadharma, right?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:21 pm

"hornets"
Am I right in thinking Buddha Nature is nothing like Atman or whatever it's known as in other Philosophies because it is constantly in flux so is therefore impermanent and always changing? Or something?

Apologies, I never get much chance/have any time to properly sit down and look at/study stuff like this these days.


I quoted the Nirvana Sutra on its teaching of Buddha Nature.
But if you really want to know more about what the Buddha Nature is,the best thing to do is read the actual Sutras that teach about Buddha Nature.
if you want me to source(quote) more information I can.
http://www.nirvanasutra.net/

Peace and Love
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 940
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm


Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kim O'Hara and 16 guests

>