Mahayana's view of arhats

last SG · 2011-07-11T03:00:27+00:00

Take sea as the example for the buddhas of ten directions. The waves are liken to the arahat whereas the current beneath the sea is mahayana ????

I No Stupid SG

both. in this forum, if u wan to know, u ask, and if u wan and have the time, u reply or post the basic Buddhist information (not that it's not already many information out there in the net). can't expect ppl to do this do that.

i wonder r u WeeShun, the taiwan guy, ...sound like him

Whoever starts a thread has a theme in mind and wants to draw discussion. While there are plenty of materials avaliable in the Net or even if a similar topic was discussed before, it would still be necessary to post some basic fundamentals (core) before spinning a long yarn. If the purpose of the forum is not discussion but to refer to published materials, then there is no need for a forum! Also, note that there are people who may come into the forum with no fundamental or prior knowledge, may not Buddhist but may be curious about what these 'Buddhists' are talking about. Therefore, it would be helpful to state some basic information, not assumption. Unless, it is the intention of this forum to be exclusive to Buddhists only and parochial in outlook and thereby not helping to give the gift of the dhamma, then one takes a similar stand like other 'exclusive' religious forums!

Who is WeeShun?

An Eternal Now SG

Who are "we" in your reply?

What do you call one who has ceased suffering? That is, one who achieved the 3rd NT?

Sorry, I meant Mahayana.

One who ceased suffering is liberated.

Arhants, pratyekabuddhas, post-bhumi bodhisattvas and buddhas are liberated.

sinweiy SG

Who is WeeShun?

u can use the search engine(top) provided in the forum to help u. i think the info were posted before.

whylikethatah SG

Generally same as Theravada. But we do not think arahat has reached their final destination, we think that arhats eventually are roused from their nirodha samapatti (cessation of perception and feelings) by the Buddhas to continue their path towards Buddhahood.

why does Mahayana think that way?

Then what's the point of Buddha Shakyamuni preaching his Dhamma 2500 years ago? Might as well teach the Mahayana way/vehicle because ultimately since Mahayana understands/thinks that everyone will be a Buddha eventually. But one cannot say 'oh it's because of different capabilities of the people that time, so that's why Buddha Shakyamuni taught it the easy way(Theravada)' . Cos if u say that, then it's no point at all, still, Arahats attain their nirvana, then come back on the Mahayana path. What a waste of time and effort even by the Buddha himself, no? It's like 1 whole big circle, coming back to square one(cycle of rebirth) after how many eons and eons in their nirvana for Arahats.

An Eternal Now SG

why does Mahayana think that way?

It is not a waste of effort because if Arahats come back, they are still liberated, but as Bodhisattvas. So it is not square one.

My Master (Ven Shen Kai) was Rahula's successor in Buddha Shakyamuni's lifetime. In other words, he took over as the leader of Rahula's students. Rahula's practice is innate mind practice.... it is the practice of awareness and nobody knew much about that group because they are silent in nature. That is why the top disciples of Buddha are well known and their students are also known, but Rahula and his students are a bit seclusive.*

Anyway, my Master said that there are 50 arahats (Rahula's students) who have returned and (most) are residing in South East Asia. Many of my Master's students, including his current day successor who lives in Taiwan, was one of those.

*91. Other than this, we know very little about Rahula. He does not seem to have been prominent at being either a Dharma teacher or a trainer of other monks. It is likely that Rahula kept himself in the background so that he could not be accused of taking advantage of being the son of the Enlightened One. - http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/disciples13.htm

whylikethatah SG

It is not a waste of effort because if Arahats come back, they are still liberated, but as Bodhisattvas. So it is not square one.

yah meh? i always read Arahats stay in their nirvana for eons...now not even 1 eon passed since the Buddha Shakyamuni's time, and u say got arahats who came back and are living in S.E Asia??

So according to u, u say that these arahats come back liberated, but on what level? got other source to back up your comment?

I No Stupid SG

yah meh? i always read Arahats stay in their nirvana for eons...now not even 1 eon passed since the Buddha Shakyamuni's time, and u say got arahats who came back and are living in S.E Asia??

So according to u, u say that these arahats come back liberated, but on what level? got other source to back up your comment?

hmm ... my understanding is that Nirvana is not a place, so how do arahats stay there for eons? Also, can a 'liberated' person return? If, arahats come back liberated, it means they were never liberated.

My understanding that if one is liberated, one does not come back in any form - arahat or cockroach.

This thingy stuff of arahats who came back to live in SE Asia must be a joke, esoteric spinning of some misguided delusional mystics.

An Eternal Now SG

yah meh? i always read Arahats stay in their nirvana for eons...now not even 1 eon passed since the Buddha Shakyamuni's time, and u say got arahats who came back and are living in S.E Asia??

So according to u, u say that these arahats come back liberated, but on what level? got other source to back up your comment?

Not necessarily eons...

I don't know what level, sorry. Lankavatara Sutra often equate arhat with 6th bhumi.

Almond Cookies SG

I wont be slandering buddhism now as I am a free thinker.

I No Stupid SG

//Mahayana does not think that Theravada arahat has reached their final destination.//

(and in conjunction with your reply of 16 Jul 11, 11:09PM)

1. What is their (Theravada arahats) final destination?

2. How many stages or grades or categories of 'liberated' are there? Is there a 'half-liberated' arahat?

3. What did the historic Buddha called his disciples who were liberated?

whylikethatah SG

My understanding that if one is liberated, one does not come back in any form - arahat or cockroach.

This thingy stuff of arahats who came back to live in SE Asia must be a joke, esoteric spinning of some misguided delusional mystics.

exactly..that's why my question lor. then why did Buddha teach 2500 years ago for what? maybe easier for Buddha to tell them 'eh, go back and be a bodhisattva now' when they are arahats, rather than have told them 2500 yrs ago. Why can't just teach Mahayana vehicle(Bodhisattva way) 2500 yrs ago? The only reason pple are going to say is that people that time wouldn't be able to comprehend - indirectly saying they buay kan.

An Eternal Now SG

//Mahayana does not think that Theravada arahat has reached their final destination.//

(and in conjunction with your reply of 16 Jul 11, 11:09PM)

1. What is their (Theravada arahats) final destination?

2. How many stages or grades or categories of 'liberated' are there? Is there a 'half-liberated' arahat?

3. What did the historic Buddha called his disciples who were liberated?

1. Buddhahood.

2. Arahat is fully liberated from uncontrolled samsaric rebirths and emotional afflictions (e.g. craving, anger, fear). They are also liberated from the 'I' conceit (illusion of self).

3. Arahat.

An Eternal Now SG

I wont be slandering buddhism now as I am a free thinker.

Ask yourself, Who am I? That is all that is necessary. Don't need zen, koan, etc for now. Just Who am I?

I No Stupid SG

The historic fact: 2500 yrs ago while the Buddha was still alive, there was no Mahayana and other 'yanas'. When Buddha passed away without naming a successor or leader, the disciples were left to their own designs. When these original disciples went their separate ways and to different regions or localities, the field was wide open to disenfranchisement of what the historic Buddha taught. Hence, the schisms within the original Buddha-sangha and subsequent formation of many sanghas, sectarianism arose and there were as many as 18 different schools!

I No Stupid SG

1. Buddhahood.

2. Arahat is fully liberated from uncontrolled samsaric rebirths and emotional afflictions (e.g. craving, anger, fear). They are also liberated from the 'I' conceit (illusion of self).

3. Arahat.

If I read you correctly (correct me if I misunderstood):

1. The purpose of achieving Buddhahood is to be like the Buddha in all his qualities – is this correct? That means Arahats despite being liberated are not contended and want to return from Nirvana to live in SEAsia (sorry, not sure if this is what you said). Isn’t Nirvana a one-way destination? And why would Arahats want to achieve Buddhahood? Is this a goal of Buddhism?

2. If Arahats are ‘fully’ liberated from some aspects you mentioned, are there areas they are not liberated?

whylikethatah SG

well, ok thats as to what happened in the history. but i was asking, why didn't Buddha teach people the Bodhisattva ideal? as opposed to the Noble 8-Fold Path which leads to the cessation of suffering etc - which is the Theravadin-Arahat ideal, which means once liberated, no more coming back. because if the Mahayana view that Arahats come back(after rousing by a Buddha), then it would have made more sense for the historical Buddha to teach the Mahayana vehicle.

sinweiy SG

yah meh? i always read Arahats stay in their nirvana for eons...now not even 1 eon passed since the Buddha Shakyamuni's time, and u say got arahats who came back and are living in S.E Asia??

So according to u, u say that these arahats come back liberated, but on what level? got other source to back up your comment?

erm why would Arahats stay in their nirvana for eons? eons sound as if it's limited and as if nirvana is a place? "Liberated" why cannot return to samsara? as in Buddha was liberated from suffering and achieved nirvana at the age of 35, and was He not still alive in samsara? Buddha Parinirvana at the age of 80. then between 35 to 80, He's not liberated? then why say He's Fully Enlightened? in Sanskrit canon, and even in Pali canon, nirvana is not extinction.

http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/102.htm

Nibbana is not nothingness or extinction. Would the Buddha leave his family and kingdom and preach for 45 years, all for nothingness?

to me if they are Great Arahats, they are equal to Buddha level.

Almond Cookies SG

I wanna be an buddha. I shall work hard towards that Goal.

sinweiy SG

to me, He did teach it to lay buddhists, who are more into Bodhisattva ideal. the ordained are more into arahat ideal. it's the lay buddhists or bodhisattvas that follow up the sanskrit canon.

but i think the pali canon also acknowledge that Buddha did teach the Bodhisattva ideal.

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/jeffrey2.htm

http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/21.htm

also we have example of the jataka tales.

Dawnfirstlight SG

http://uqconnect.net/slsoc/bsq/budchr0.htm

The Existence of the Universe

In their attempts to prove God’s existence, Christians will sometimes say “The universe didn’t just happen, someone must have made it and therefore there must be a creator God.” There is a major flaw in this argument. When it starts to rain ~e do not ask “Who is making it rain?” because we know that rain is caused not by someone but by something – natural phenomena like heat, evaporation, precipitation, etc. When we see smooth stones in a river, we do not ask “Who polished those stones?” because we know that the smooth surface of the stones was caused not by someone but by something – natural causes like the abrasive action of water and sand.

All of these things have a cause (or causes) but this need not be a being. It is the same with the universe – it was not brought into being by a God but by natural phenomena like nuclear fission, gravity, inertia, etc. However, even if we believe that a divine being is needed to explain how the universe came into existence, what proof is there that it was the Christian God? Perhaps it was created by the Hindu God, the God of Islam or one of the gods worshipped by tribal religions. After all most religions, not only Christianity, claim that their God or gods created the universe.

The Argument from Design

In response to the above refutation, the Christian will maintain that the universe does not merely exist but its existence shows perfect design. There is, a Christian might say, an order and balance which point to its having been designed by a higher intelligence, and that this higher intelligence is God. But as before, there are some problems with this argument.

Firstly, how does the Christian know that it was his God who is behind creation? Perhaps it was the gods of non-Christian religions who designed and created the universe.

Secondly, how does the Christian know that only one God designed everything? In fact, as the universe is so intricate and complex we could expect it to need the intelligence of several, perhaps dozens, of gods to design it. So if anything the argument from design proves that there are many gods, not one as Christians claim.

Next, we would have to ask, is the universe perfectly designed? We must ask this because if a perfect God designed and created the universe, then that universe should be perfect. Let us first look at inanimate phenomena to see whether they show perfect design. Rain gives us pure water to drink but sometimes it rains too much and people lose their lives, their homes and their means of livelihood in floods. At other times it doesn’t rain at all and millions die in drought and famine. Is this perfect design? The mountains give us joy as we see them reaching up into the sky. But landslides ~nd volcanic eruptions have for centuries caused havoc and death. Is this perfect design? The gentle breezes cool us but storms and tornadoes repeatedly cause death and destruction. Is this perfect design? These and other natural calamities prove that inanimate phenomena do not exhibit perfect design and therefore that they were not created by a perfect God.

Now let us look at animate phenomena to see whether they reveal perfect design. At a superficial glance, nature seems to be beautiful and harmonious; all creatures are provided for and each has its task to perform. However, as any biologist will confirm, nature is utterly ruthless. To live, each creature has to feed on other creatures and struggle to avoid being eaten by other creatures. In nature, there is no time for pity, love or mercy. If a loving God designed everything, why did such a cruel design result? The animal kingdom is not only imperfect in the ethical sense, it is also imperfect in that it often goes wrong. Every year ~lions of babies are born with physical or mental disabilities, or are stillborn or die soon after birth. Why would a perfect creator God design such terrible things?

So if there is design in the universe, much of it is faulty and cruel. This would seem to indicate that the universe was not created by a perfect all-loving God.

I used to hear "Praise God" whenever they see something beautiful. I wonder what do they say when earthquakes or tsunami strike.

« Previous Page Next Page »