Ask MysticSang'ha anything (Buddhism, disciple, doctrine, experience, pray)

[koan]

Lilithu, Zen also accepts Maitreya as the next Buddha, as Zen is part of Mahayana.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by MysticSang'ha

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Jataka tales, where Buddha's lives are recounted before his incarnation as Siddhartha............if memory serves me correctly, he is referred or described much like a Bodhisattva.

Ahh, I see. I always forget about those stories as we never discuss them in sutta study. They are dismissed as folk lore. But if you want to call that an arbitrary distinction, I would agree with you. And yes, the Buddha does seem like a Bodhisattva there.

I found Engyo's and koan's posts on this subject to be very helpful. Thanks guys. And thank you Mystic for providing the environment for this discussion.

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by ZenZero the adept

If one agrees then the next question would be what is the difference between man and other beings. Nothing except that the mind has slowly evolved too and developed in man such that only man can realize and get back (or) merge with the very source of life which no other beings CAN.

That my friend is a supposition that cannot be substantiated. My guess is that this kind of thinking evolves from the realm of man’s egotistical nature wherein if it is not the same as his then it is somehow less. The thought that animals are somehow mentally inferior to us is stretching credulity. They are not “lower” forms… they are simply different forms. Animals have no need for this “reabsorbing” as they are already in direct perfect harmony with their view of reality. In my books, that makes man the one with the chip on his collective shoulder and we should look at the animals with wonder not benevolent disdain.

Originally Posted by ZenZero the adept

The other difference between man and other beings is that other beings life as one with nature except man and that also is due to man being guided by the mind which by nature is never in the present but always in the past or future.

It would appear that, to an extent, we agree. I politely disagree with a proviso. It is somewhat true that people are in a constant turmoil due to their abuse of their thought processes. They have a tendency to fixate on aspects of their experience to the exclusion of all others. Fortunately it is completely possible to tune ones thought processes to the here now. In one of Carlos Castaneda’s books, the old Indian, Juan Matus (aka Don Juan) explained that one has to live as a warrior, living each moment as if it were his last moment on Earth. He explained by mastering this art-form one would connect to their own personal power and learn how to use that personal power. In effect, he was telling Carlos the Art of Being Here Now. It is pretty simple, once you get the hang of it.

Originally Posted by ZenZero the adept

To be one with nature/ existence is simple - just get the mind free of thoughts then one becomes totally free and immediately merges and joins the source and becomes a part of the whole like all other beings. [note: beings here is referred to all forms and no-forms]

Different words, but we are on a similar page here methinks. This is partially what I refer to when I try to explain to people ways that they can “connect” with their larger identity which already exists, here and now.

Originally Posted by ZenZero the adept

All enlightened persons have been trying to get across the same message / knowledge of how to merge with this existence and all tailor-made their methods depending on the method he himself used to merge and also depending on the type of audience he was addressing to.

Hehe. I rest my case. That is all I am trying to do. My basic feeling on the matter is that if I cannot express concepts in my own words, based on my own continuing experience of reality then I have no right to stoop and use the words of others to shore up my inconsistencies. That would be cheating and it would minimize what I am trying to tell people. So I am left with the daunting task of creating new symbols for a new way of looking at the same ol’ reality. Why new symbols? Well, I do not believe the old symbols are meaningful anymore and view then as cars that have run out of gas and should be retired from service.

Originally Posted by ZenZero the adept

The experience of all are the same whichever may be the method BUT here we still fight stating this is Buddhist and that is Christian or Hindu etc.

I disagree. *giggle* Their experiences are different because they were different people. No two people will see the Oneness in the same way, period. Therefore each expresses what they experience translated through their own unique thought processes. Some, like Buddha, did better than others. They were indeed attempting to describe the same low level view of reality to the audiences of their day however, so one has to hand it to them for doing a very good job what with that which they had to work with, lol. Likewise we cannot overlook what their followers have done with their messages. We have it only on the slimmest of account the exact words that either of these two personages said, so we should not go too crazy forming conclusions on those writings. A thoughtful person would realize that there is always the possibility for error to creep in – usually in the most unexpected places.

Originally Posted by ZenZero the adept

All are humans and the goal is one. The goal diffuses and the purposelessness seen as soon as one merges to that begining-less and endless existence.

Riddle me this, oh user of Koan-speak. If the is a goal then how can one even allude to a sense of purposelessness, as you put it? The point being that if there is no purpose, what exactly is the point of a goal? Or do you perhaps mean that like resisting the Borg on Star Trek, “Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.” (Ergo, it is an exercise in futility to try to resist the call from within that harkens us Home? I would agree that once the individual hears the sirens song there is no turning back.)

Originally Posted by ZenZero the adept

Karma is as we know is nothing but ACTION. We all know that every action has a reaction. The reaction is not ALL immediate e.g. You are in a valley or mountain top and you shout the echos keeps coming back one after the other depending on the location one is. Suppose you throw a ball to a wall you see the ball comes back as a reaction but one cannot see that while the ball is traveling through the air before and after reaching the wall is coming in contact with many atoms in the air itself which in turn reacts and hits other atoms next to it and slowly the action goes across the universe and that too comes back but takes along time and is unseen. Likewise when one does anything the resultant action goes around the universe and comes back to the initial doer.

That is a splendid description of the “standard model” of Karma, to be sure, but sadly, one that I do not support. You could say that Karma is a multidimensional law. It is not simply a feature of physical reality. It is a universal constant permeating all aspects of all reality. The idea that one can escape Karma is highly misleading as you will always feel the effects of your actions even long after you have left this puny world behind. But heck, what would I know? J You are energy that will always create action and therefore you will always feel the effects of those actions. This is what I am talking about. The Buddhist sense of Karma is not quite the same thing, so perhaps I should endeavor to find a different word.

Originally Posted by ZenZero the adept

All this happens when actions are done unconsciously.

I do not accept the notion of “unconscious” although I do on occasion use the term. There are only varying degrees of awareness.

Originally Posted by ZenZero the adept

As consciously and action done means it is done with full awareness of all its implication and the responsibility attached with it and so one becomes prepared to accept the result in the same fashion as while doing it. This slowly erase the resultant karma or action.

Actually it erases ones attachment to ones actions. You simply cannot erase reality’s response to your action, period. It is a universal constant and not just a feature of physical reality. Living each moment, as if it were your last moment on Earth automatically removes our penchant for not acting fully. We simply must abandon our hope that a given action will be seen as good or seen as bad. Those dualistic value judgments are the illusion as all there is is action and we are action, personified.
(continued)

[YmirGF]

*grr*

Originally Posted by ZenZero the adept

Now what is to be conscious?

Originally Posted by ZenZero the adept

The same as what all enlightened people have been trying to get others to understand. When the mind is without thoughts one remains in the present and in that present whatever is done is done consciously.

Be a WITNESS unto oneself. means Be Present being conscious.

It appears we are in agreement on this one, more or less. The point of power is in the present and if you wish to exercise your personal power you can only do so right now. When people realize that they can propel themselves through change almost effortlessly they will understand that there is no need to feel trapped by past actions or theoretical future actions.

Aside: I always hear people talk about erasing so-called past Karma, but why is it that it is never conjectured that some future action on the part of the individual could not erase karma from the past. Here I am thinking of a trickle-down effect that would effectively render the present personality “free” of karma. I wonder why that is?

Originally Posted by ZenZero the adept

Let us allow ourselves to know that we are all humans and whatever religion we follow are just choices we are making for the same purpose as the other following another religion as that is the choice he made. We all make our choices according to what we are comfortable with.

I understand, but this is merely “flesh based” thinking and on the face of it it does sound accurate, however, though my body is most certainly and currently a middle-aged male that kernel of energy that I identify with being my real self is not human in the any conventional sense. Again, I AM my larger identity and am fully aware of that. My physical body is a reflection of my self image translated through the medium of flesh and blood. My body is of a genus I refer to as the human animal and though I love that body dearly and this will always remain one of my favorite incarnations, that body understands that it will not last forever. It is a temporary expression of my inner vitality in a world of similar beings who have largely forgotten both their origins.

Originally Posted by ZenZero the adept

Differences are all in forms and appearances but not in its objective. TRUST/ LOVE for each other grows automatically.

To me, love is a given and I trust my ability to move forward. My trust in others, in the One’s diversity is not something that is automatic however as it is a prize I give for exceptional behavior to those who deserve it. If trust is given freely then it becomes watered down and eventually has little meaning other than the simple fact that the originator of that trust is extremely naïve.

Have a great day, I am back out to path building. J

[vandervalley]

The ideal in Mahayana Buddhism is the Bodhisattva. The ideal in Theravada Buddhism is the Arhat (or Arahant).

Actually; the ideal in Pure Land school (and I believe many Mahayana schools) is to achieve Buddhahood in the long run; not just to attain "Bodhisattva-hood".

In Mahayana Buddhism Arahant is just a level of enlightenment; however that level of enlightenment is not as "deep" as the Buddhahood (which Shakyamuni Buddha achieved.) or Boddisattava-hood; such as Manjusri Boddhisattava.

In Theravada, Siddhartha is not a Bodhisattva; he is an Arhat.

Siddhartha attained Buddhahood; which is the highest level of enlightenement one can get to. So I'd think referring Buddha to a Arhat/arahant is inadequate.

I don't know what Theravadans think of Maitreya... if they do at all? A Bodhisattva delays his or her own final enlightenment in order to stay within samsara to help others.

Different Bodhisattvas have different vows or goals; just like ordinary people having different goals. So a Boddhisattava may have vows to prolong enlightenemnt; but that doesn't mean other Boddhisattavas need to do the same. A Boddisattava has already attained enlightenment so it's not subjected to samsarra. Good examples are Majusri and Avalokiteśvara. These Boddhisattavas are not subjected to samsarra at all.

An Arhat is someone who has attained enlightenment through his or her own efforts and has escaped the cycle of death and rebirth.

Many of Buddha's disciples attained Arahant-hood through teachings of Buddha so I wouldn't think that all Arahants achieved arahant-hood by itself.

[zenzero]

Friends,
Arhat is one who goes to be enlightened without passing the knowledge or teachings whereas Boddisatvas though they can become enelightened any time themselves would try and help others also to be enlightened.
Love & rgds

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by zenzero

Friends,
Arhat is one who goes to be enlightened without passing the knowledge or teachings whereas Boddisatvas though they can become enelightened any time themselves would try and help others also to be enlightened.
Love & rgds

Correct, at least that is more or less the idea as I understand it. I think the idea has become muddied with the passage of "time" however.