A question about Arahats

[joeblast]

labels who cares? you are where you are, as long as the progression continues in some fashion...

[Vajrahridaya]

labels who cares? you are where you are, as long as the progression continues in some fashion...

 

Well, for a Buddhist specific intentions during the progress are important and that manifests the fruit.

[findley]

Buddha's... bodhisattva's....

 

Indeed, something to worship--

 

Though they seem to do a piss-poor job, don't they?

 

I personally can't decide if I would like to worship my own personal avatar in the form of a centaur or pegasus. Unicorns are too girly...

[joeblast]

hehe sorry, I'm a little more taoist in method, I suppose - I can correlate it to music I write - most stuff is very genre ambiguous, borrowing from all experience and melded into my own little interpretation of what sounds cool to me

 

its part of the reason Max and kunlun resonate so well with me - a great many things in my life I have simply had to figure out on my own from when I was very young. often, it was not that I couldnt ask, it was that I could intuitively figure stuff well enough on my own that people's explanations of step 1 seemed rather irrelevant when I had a question about step 4. when I ran out of places to ask, I had to turn within. maybe for all I know, a person in my situation could be trumpeting my ills and blaming it on the practice, when I know that when I look down far enough, any issues are entirely me, not the practice. so I'm used to a measure of trailblazing, and quite comfortable with it. (a different manifestation, my younger brother...you could airlift him to timbuktu and he would find his way home, somehow he just knows how to get places, and a damn good mechanic too)

 

I guess my issue was - well, I suppose on one hand it is ok to have to call something something...but at the same time, the word is so far removed from the reality of such that it is...well, kind of a joke in an apples to apples comparison.

 

but at the same time I can appreciate the need for the existence of the label

[Vajrahridaya]

Buddha's... bodhisattva's....

 

Indeed, something to worship--

 

Though they seem to do a piss-poor job, don't they?

 

Don't know bout that, they've influenced more people into enlightenment than any other spiritual tradition, across so many different countries and continents.

 

Plus, we don't worship them, we integrate their wisdom with our own mind stream by realizing the same potentiality that they've realized.

 

 

I guess my issue was - well, I suppose on one hand it is ok to have to call something something...but at the same time, the word is so far removed from the reality of such that it is...well, kind of a joke in an apples to apples comparison.

 

but at the same time I can appreciate the need for the existence of the label

 

Even if one were to have great guidance, one would walk the path alone, in as much as no one can make us actually drink the water out of the cup offered us or walk the map given. Plus everyone will experience the walk in a unique way, even if we pass the same place marks. Spirituality is still intimately unique from person to person, no matter what.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[mat black]

Question: We often talk about how arhats and bodhisattvas are different and similar. Will the Venerable Master please explain the differences between arhats and bodhisattvas for us?

 

Master: "Arhats" and "Bodhisattvas" are just terms. This is a matter of difference between people. Bodhisattvas benefit other people while arhats only cultivate for themselves. These are stages of cultivation. As ordinary people, we don't understand the states of arhats. As we go back and forth, deducing and imagining, we will have wasted all our time.

~~~Venerable master Hsuan Hua

Edited August 6, 2009 by mat black

[Lucky7Strikes]

It was my understanding that an arhat, who at once realizes the emptiness of all things, will naturally abide in compassion for other beings. And will transition into a Buddha effortlessly.

 

I don't see how an arhat or a bodhisattva could put in any effort or personal affection when both have transcended illusions of a "self" or inherent existence. Omniscience of Buddhhood will just follow naturally when this realization is guarded.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[xabir2005]

It was my understanding that an arhat, who at once realizes the emptiness of all things, will naturally abide in compassion for other beings. And will transition into a Buddha effortlessly.

 

I don't see how an arhat or a bodhisattva could put in any effort or personal affection when both have transcended illusions of a "self" or inherent existence. Omniscience of Buddhhood will just follow naturally when this realization is guarded.

No-self is often mistaken as selflessness or compassion.

 

They are not the same.

 

Selflessness means always thinking of others ahead of ourselves (contrasted with selfishness, always thinking of oneself while neglecting others).

 

Realising that 'there is no perceiver, thinker, doer' apart or within the stream of phenomenality does not necessarily mean we start to think about the benefits of sentient beings.

 

And therefore, it is perfectly possible for an Arhat to be selfish, while an ordinary being may be selfless.

 

Actually, I believe most Arhats are compassionate people, but any less an aim of Buddhahood in Mahayana is considered not enough, because only a Buddha can benefit the masses of sentient beings while the Arhat simply enters into personal cessation.

 

The Bodhisattvas make such a vow according to sutras, "但愿众生得离苦，不为自己求安乐". Which means they vow that all sentient beings may be freed from sufferings, but do not seek any peace for themselves (e.g. personal nirvana).

Edited August 6, 2009 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Actually, I believe most Arhats are compassionate people, but any less an aim of Buddhahood in Mahayana is considered not enough, because only a Buddha can benefit the masses of sentient beings while the Arhat simply enters into personal cessation.

 

So Mahayana acknowledge the notion of complete and total cessation? But the Buddha is eternal because of his endless compassion?

 

Sorry some of this is confusing since Vh's been writing from the Vajrayana view.

[xabir2005]

So Mahayana acknowledge the notion of complete and total cessation? But the Buddha is eternal because of his endless compassion?

 

Sorry some of this is confusing since Vh's been writing from the Vajrayana view.

All Arhats enters into cessation after death. However, it is also the understanding of Mahayana/Vajrayana that after a very very long time they will return to complete their journey to Buddhahood. So, the Arhat's cessation isn't eternal.

[Lucky7Strikes]

All Arhats enters into cessation after death. However, it is also the understanding of Mahayana/Vajrayana that after a very very long time they will return to complete their journey to Buddhahood. So, the Arhat's cessation isn't eternal.

 

Ah ok that makes more sense

 

So there's like an arhat realm...

 

And where do these beings usually return to?

[xabir2005]

Ah ok that makes more sense

 

So there's like an arhat realm...

 

And where do these beings usually return to?

Except that cessation means cessation, it isn't exactly a conditioned state/realm. Imagine an oil lamp that stops burning when the oil is finished, does the fire go to north, south, east, west, or does the 'where' simply not apply? In the case of an Arhat, his afflictions (the oil) which is the causes of birth and death is removed and simply stops giving rise to samsaric births/experience.

 

I don't know where arhats will return to, but when they do come back they come back as Bodhisattvas, and Bodhisattvas I think can appear anywhere.

[Vajrahridaya]

It was my understanding that an arhat, who at once realizes the emptiness of all things, will naturally abide in compassion for other beings. And will transition into a Buddha effortlessly.

 

I don't see how an arhat or a bodhisattva could put in any effort or personal affection when both have transcended illusions of a "self" or inherent existence. Omniscience of Buddhhood will just follow naturally when this realization is guarded.

 

Yes, that's the Dzogchen position, that it can happen instantaneously, but generally that instantaneousness happens over an illusion of time as the realization of emptiness is integrated from one's personal universe as an Arhat into all universes of expression as infinite beings.

 

Except that cessation means cessation, it isn't exactly a conditioned state/realm. Imagine an oil lamp that stops burning when the oil is finished, does the fire go to north, south, east, west, or does the 'where' simply not apply? In the case of an Arhat, his afflictions (the oil) which is the causes of birth and death is removed and simply stops giving rise to samsaric births/experience.

 

I don't know where arhats will return to, but when they do come back they come back as Bodhisattvas, and Bodhisattvas I think can appear anywhere.

A Bodhisattva turns that oil into an endless supply through offering merits, and flipping the beginningless Samsaric connections of his or her being from selfish to selfless, thus realizing an endless supply of ability or energy of offering as a Buddha.

 

It's kind of as simple as turning the mirror from inside to outside... as a metaphor.

[Vajrahridaya]

These are some discussions that happened surrounding this same question in another board...

 

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php...91866&st=40

Posts #44 to #48.

[Vajrahridaya]

[Inedible]

The job of a Bodhisattva is to guide all sentient beings into Nirvana, in order to empty out Samsara. One who becomes an Arhat and enters into Nirvana is one less sentient being to be guided there. The funny thing is that in order to become a Buddha you have to vow to save all sentient beings by guiding them into Nirvana. All of them. Every Bodhisattva vows to save all sentient beings. You might expect a certain amount of overlap to be involved, and maybe you'd expect a few Arhats to have saved themselves, but it doesn't work that way.

[Birch]

Hi and thanks to everyone who answered this one so far.

 

Again to display my lack of knowledge, but aren't Nirvana and Samsara the same thing?

 

And if so then no-one is really "going" anywhere so I'm thinking the Bodhisattva is just someone who gets involved with the other folks- although why he'd do that is a bit strange given that he now knows he and they doesn't exist in the first place.

 

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi and thanks to everyone who answered this one so far.

 

Again to display my lack of knowledge, but aren't Nirvana and Samsara the same thing?

 

And if so then no-one is really "going" anywhere so I'm thinking the Bodhisattva is just someone who gets involved with the other folks- although why he'd do that is a bit strange given that he now knows he and they doesn't exist in the first place.

 

 

Nirvana is simply Samsara understood completely through and through to the point of translucent transparency.

 

No, Buddhism does not believe in non-existence. There is only existence, and dependent origination describes how existence works. It doesn't work from an ultimate substance, it works from a standpoint of infinite regress, or endless regress of causes and conditions. Thereby, ultimately there is no existence to speak of in and of itself in the moment, because each moment depends on the previous moment.

 

It's subtler than black and white, existence non-existence. Dependent origination just reveals how existence flows as empty of inherent essence.

[Birch]

Thanks!

 

Some interesting ideas in that last post especially.

 

What about Tao in that framework? I'm likely showing myself up again but in Taoism, don't the things come out of non-existence?

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks!

 

Some interesting ideas in that last post especially.

 

What about Tao in that framework? I'm likely showing myself up again but in Taoism, don't the things come out of non-existence?

 

In Taoism they come from a reified non-conceptuality. That's different and not seeing the dependent origination that the Buddha taught and saw directly beyond anything being a beginning.

 

From Tao Wiki:

 

"There was something undefined and complete, existing before Heaven and Earth. How still it was, how formless, standing alone and undergoing no change, reaching everywhere with no danger of being exhausted. It may be regarded as the mother of all things. Truthfully it has no name, but I call it Tao (TTC, chapter 25)"

 

That would be a reification of a non-conceptual substance that is a beginning of things, or an existence that is before the beginning of things. Buddhism see's that as conditional and not transcending dependent origination which is beginningless.

 

Taoism is just ultimating a substantial Truth beyond concepts that is always existent. It's pretty much the same as Brahmanism, or Vedanta.

 

This is not the same as Buddhist realization. Buddhas see that state as basically a state of meditative absorption when all the "gunas" or "tattvas", which are basically principles of reality, suppressed into a non-actualizing potentiality. It's basically calling the illumined deep unconsciousness experienced in deep sleep, or that dimension said to be beyond that as the ultimate Truth. To the Buddha that is just a state of mental focus on a formless space of consciousness, but not ultimate Truth.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Birch]

Thanks for this.

 

How do you know that you're not still being dualistic when you make the distinction between the "unmoving" Tao and DO?

 

I know there's a double negative in there and apologize if it messes with the basic idea, but I hadn't understood TAO as the background or a thing apart from DO but the description of the complete system itself.

 

Actual consciousness of DO is possible, agree. Actual consciousness of Tao isn't possible for me (yet;-) ?) and if what I'm saying is correct then I can never have consciousness of Tao. So maybe we are actually agreeing. Maybe not.

 

Anyway, no hurry. I see you are having a fun time over on the sword fighting thread;-)

[nac]

As far as I know, an Arhat is a being who has achieved perfect non-being. A Bodhisattva is a being who has given up his own chance to pursue enlightenment in order to help other beings transcend suffering.

 

Buddhist organizations don't tell you who to respect and how much.

 

Note: These are the Buddhist terms. Other dharmic religions like Jainism have their own Arhats, etc.

[Vajrahridaya]

As far as I know, an Arhat is a being who has achieved perfect non-being. A Bodhisattva is a being who has given up his own chance to pursue enlightenment in order to help other beings transcend suffering.

 

Buddhist organizations don't tell you who to respect and how much.

 

Note: These are the Buddhist terms. Other dharmic religions like Jainism have their own Arhats, etc.

 

A Bodhisattva doesn't necessarily give up their chance at enlightenment, they just do it for the sake of others instead of merely self realization. The intention is different. They set out to attain realization FOR others. It's a different experience in the mind stream all together as is my own experience when I went from the desire for mere self realization, and transcending everyone to actually doing it for the sake of beings. It creates a whole other assortment of connectivity with beings. Where one actually has to learn how to be more down to Earth.

 

Thanks for this.

 

How do you know that you're not still being dualistic when you make the distinction between the "unmoving" Tao and DO?

 

I know there's a double negative in there and apologize if it messes with the basic idea, but I hadn't understood TAO as the background or a thing apart from DO but the description of the complete system itself.

 

Actual consciousness of DO is possible, agree. Actual consciousness of Tao isn't possible for me (yet;-) ?) and if what I'm saying is correct then I can never have consciousness of Tao. So maybe we are actually agreeing. Maybe not.

 

Anyway, no hurry. I see you are having a fun time over on the sword fighting thread;-)

 

Consciousness of D.O. as it actually is, is release of abiding conscious identity.

 

This Tao is a state of absorption beyond thought. It's merely a subtle state of consciousness. When one comes out of this state one see's everyone start to kind of re-manifest so then one thinks that everything is a manifestation of this Tao. It's subtler in the experience of the meditation than it is in the explanation. But, Taoism is a substantial non-duality, while Buddhism is non-substantial.

 

As in Tao is the substance behind and of what things are made of. It's considered a wholeness that is pure being that is pryer to thingness. A background of a sort that all things are one with. It's considered the identity of things. The true abiding reality of all things.

 

Buddhism's non-duality is merely just recognizing that all phenomena even non-conceptual experiences beyond time are dependently originated and inherently empty of being in and of it's or themselves.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

I asked my friend Thusness (who was trained by a Taoist master for many years in the past) whether Tao is a substance, to which he replied:

 

If Tao is a substance, then Lao Tze would not named it 'Tao', the 'Way'. Rather see 'non-action', 'naturalness', see the lack of essence like water. Not to look for anything in practice but rather touch this 'The Way'. Once the heart truly touches 'The Way' of naturalness, then the mind turns spirit and chi flows naturally. You will understand why "the valley spirit never dies". In self-so-ness, you will experience the valley that never runs dry even when consumed.

[Vajrahridaya]

I asked my friend Thusness (who was trained by a Taoist master for many years in the past) whether Tao is a substance, to which he replied:

 

If Tao is a substance, then Lao Tze would not named it 'Tao', the 'Way'. Rather see 'non-action', 'naturalness', see the lack of essence like water. Not to look for anything in practice but rather touch this 'The Way'. Once the heart truly touches 'The Way' of naturalness, then the mind turns spirit and chi flows naturally. You will understand why "the valley spirit never dies". In self-so-ness, you will experience the valley that never runs dry even when consumed.

 

One can see dependent origination in everything if so inclined. The clarity of presentation does not seem to be as succinct though. What's this.. Tao that exists before the universe came into being? Something that's whole and complete in and of itself that precedes the universe? This is also from the Tao De Ching. But, sure it's a way of pointing, but I still think it's not so clear. It' doesn't seem to transcend beginning in initial presentation. Then again it all depends upon how it's translated, because Dzogchen uses the language of since the beginning mind is pure and unsullied. Even though the buddha say's since beginningless time the mind is pure and unsullied. Of course it's all semantics, but symbols are what's used so the clearest are the best.

 

Dzogchen is saying since the moment that mind is apprehended. The Buddha is saying that even if mind is not apprehended.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Vajrahridaya