Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:18 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 6:42 pm
Posts: 26
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:25 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:22 pm
Posts: 417
Location: East Coast of Canada
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am
Posts: 2776
If this is helpful

Quote:
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.

_________________
TWTB BIES OCB DDM BWF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 963
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:22 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Posts: 1465
Location: Europe
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.

_________________
Metta, Karuna, Mudita, Upekha
*** om vajra krodha hayagrīva hulu hulu hūm phat**


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 6:42 pm
Posts: 26
I'm confused again! :shrug:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 6:42 pm
Posts: 26
[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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:04 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Posts: 1465
Location: Europe
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

_________________
Metta, Karuna, Mudita, Upekha
*** om vajra krodha hayagrīva hulu hulu hūm phat**


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 963
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 963
Quote:
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group