is there any accurate translation and unified book of The Buddha's Teachings?

[rockyysdt]

The Tibetan translations of the sutras are considered to be very accurate. The Tibetan version of Buddhist text includes many, many texts which Hinayana Buddhist do not recognize. The Buddha taught what is known as tantra and there are many such texts. Tantras present a much broader and more comprehensive view of the universe and existence than what is in sutras. The tantras also contain many spiritual practices not found in the sutras. Then there are the commentaries on the sutras and also text written by subsequent enlightened masters but, again, Hinayana (Thai) Buddhists don't accept these.

So, English versions of sutras translated from the Tibetan canon are generally considered as accurate.

Btw, Hinayana is not a derogatory term, it's simply the name of one of the three principle 'streams' of Buddhist teachings. Theravada, on the other hand, is the name of one of the 18 philosophical schools that arose out of the Buddha's teaching.

Unfortunately, what the Buddha actually taught will remain a mystery to most of us.

Most will never know.

Which raises an interesting topic.

What causes individuals to align with sects, schools, & teachings.

Is it due to our conditioning which draws us in certain directions?

I spend considerable time pondering such alignment, mine and that of others, during moments of Mindfulness.

[Jawnie]

The translations, those translated from Sanskrit to Tibetan, were initially overseen by Padma Sambhava, the subsequent re-incarnation of Shakyamuni and by the group of enlightened scholars he led for the translations in the eighth century. The translations have also been verified by subsequent masters and by their realization through study and practice. The evidence of tantra was brought forward by those students to whom the Buddha directly taught tantra to. Over time, the tantras were practiced and verified by subsequent masters.

The Tibetan translations of the sutras are considered to be very accurate.

By whom?

The Buddha taught what is known as tantra and there are many such texts.

Any independent evidence he taught tantra?

[Jawnie]

The Tibetan translations of the sutras are considered to be very accurate. The Tibetan version of Buddhist text includes many, many texts which Hinayana Buddhist do not recognize. The Buddha taught what is known as tantra and there are many such texts. Tantras present a much broader and more comprehensive view of the universe and existence than what is in sutras. The tantras also contain many spiritual practices not found in the sutras. Then there are the commentaries on the sutras and also text written by subsequent enlightened masters but, again, Hinayana (Thai) Buddhists don't accept these.

So, English versions of sutras translated from the Tibetan canon are generally considered as accurate.

Btw, Hinayana is not a derogatory term, it's simply the name of one of the three principle 'streams' of Buddhist teachings. Theravada, on the other hand, is the name of one of the 18 philosophical schools that arose out of the Buddha's teaching.

Unfortunately, what the Buddha actually taught will remain a mystery to most of us.

Most will never know.

Which raises an interesting topic.

What causes individuals to align with sects, schools, & teachings.

Is it due to our conditioning which draws us in certain directions?

I spend considerable time pondering such alignment, mine and that of others, during moments of Mindfulness.

That we may never really know fully what the Buddha taught is your interpretation of how the teaching abide and were/are maintained. I don't hold that view. The Dharma is indestructable and not subject to the circumstances of time and place. The 16 Arhants, who were direct disciples of the Buddha, vowed to stay in the world to assist sentient beings. According to Tibetan sources, the reincarnation histories of each of the 16 Arhants has been recorded including up to the present.

[bankei]

The Tibetan translations of the sutras are considered to be very accurate. The Tibetan version of Buddhist text includes many, many texts which Hinayana Buddhist do not recognize. The Buddha taught what is known as tantra and there are many such texts. Tantras present a much broader and more comprehensive view of the universe and existence than what is in sutras. The tantras also contain many spiritual practices not found in the sutras. Then there are the commentaries on the sutras and also text written by subsequent enlightened masters but, again, Hinayana (Thai) Buddhists don't accept these.

So, English versions of sutras translated from the Tibetan canon are generally considered as accurate.

Btw, Hinayana is not a derogatory term, it's simply the name of one of the three principle 'streams' of Buddhist teachings. Theravada, on the other hand, is the name of one of the 18 philosophical schools that arose out of the Buddha's teaching.

Unfortunately, what the Buddha actually taught will remain a mystery to most of us.

Most will never know.

Which raises an interesting topic.

What causes individuals to align with sects, schools, & teachings.

Is it due to our conditioning which draws us in certain directions?

I spend considerable time pondering such alignment, mine and that of others, during moments of Mindfulness.

That we may never really know fully what the Buddha taught is your interpretation of how the teaching abide and were/are maintained. I don't hold that view. The Dharma is indestructable and not subject to the circumstances of time and place. The 16 Arhants, who were direct disciples of the Buddha, vowed to stay in the world to assist sentient beings. According to Tibetan sources, the reincarnation histories of each of the 16 Arhants has been recorded including up to the present.

According to Buddhist theory an Arahant cannot be reborn (what is it that reincarnates?). Maybe you are talking about Bodhisattavas?

And, are there any sources that Padma Sambhava was supposed to be a 'reincarnation' of the Buddha? ie. is this really claimed by any legitimate tradition?

Bankei

[Jawnie]

Yes, we are talking about the Bodhisattva ideals which is not so much a part of Hinayana but is a main feature of Mahayana and Vajrayana. Because the Buddha taught all three, the teachings on Buddha as bodhisattva are found in Mahayana and Vajrayana texts. From the view of the Mahayana, Shakyamuni attained the more complete enlightenment of the Mahayana. The difference is that the Hinayana teaches enlightenment to be extinction. Mahayana teaches that enlightenment is freedom from all defilements and attachments but the mind continues and may manifest again in other times, places, and bodies. That's the essence of the bodhisattva ideal, one does not abandon beings in the six realms after nirvana or enlightenment, but vows to stay until all are free. I've heard Thai buddhist call this a 'fetter' and and attachment, to stay and help other beings. That's an incomplete view of the enlightened mind, which is suffused with compassion, something not strongly reinforced in Hinayana.

Here's the quote from a sutra which is commonly cited. I don't have the name of the sutra but will try to find it:

"When the Buddha was about to pass away at Kushinagara, and his disciples were weeping, He said to them: " The world being transitory and death inevitable for all living things,the time for my departure hath come. But weep not ;for 12 years after my departure ,from a lotus blossom on the Dhanakosha Lake,in the north-western corner of the country of Urgyan, there will be born one who will be much wiser and more spiritually powerful than Myself. He will be called PADMASAMBHAVA ,and by him the Esoteric Doctrine will be established."

The Tibetan translations of the sutras are considered to be very accurate. The Tibetan version of Buddhist text includes many, many texts which Hinayana Buddhist do not recognize. The Buddha taught what is known as tantra and there are many such texts. Tantras present a much broader and more comprehensive view of the universe and existence than what is in sutras. The tantras also contain many spiritual practices not found in the sutras. Then there are the commentaries on the sutras and also text written by subsequent enlightened masters but, again, Hinayana (Thai) Buddhists don't accept these.

So, English versions of sutras translated from the Tibetan canon are generally considered as accurate.

Btw, Hinayana is not a derogatory term, it's simply the name of one of the three principle 'streams' of Buddhist teachings. Theravada, on the other hand, is the name of one of the 18 philosophical schools that arose out of the Buddha's teaching.

Unfortunately, what the Buddha actually taught will remain a mystery to most of us.

Most will never know.

Which raises an interesting topic.

What causes individuals to align with sects, schools, & teachings.

Is it due to our conditioning which draws us in certain directions?

I spend considerable time pondering such alignment, mine and that of others, during moments of Mindfulness.

That we may never really know fully what the Buddha taught is your interpretation of how the teaching abide and were/are maintained. I don't hold that view. The Dharma is indestructable and not subject to the circumstances of time and place. The 16 Arhants, who were direct disciples of the Buddha, vowed to stay in the world to assist sentient beings. According to Tibetan sources, the reincarnation histories of each of the 16 Arhants has been recorded including up to the present.

According to Buddhist theory an Arahant cannot be reborn (what is it that reincarnates?). Maybe you are talking about Bodhisattavas?

And, are there any sources that Padma Sambhava was supposed to be a 'reincarnation' of the Buddha? ie. is this really claimed by any legitimate tradition?

Bankei

Edited November 5, 2013 by Jawnie

[camerata]

The Tibetan translations of the sutras are considered to be very accurate. The Tibetan version of Buddhist text includes many, many texts which Hinayana Buddhist do not recognize.  The Buddha taught what is known as tantra and there are many such texts. Tantras present a much broader and more comprehensive view of the universe and existence than what is in sutras.  The tantras also contain many spiritual practices not found in the sutras.  Then there are the commentaries on the sutras and also text written by subsequent enlightened masters but, again, Hinayana (Thai) Buddhists don't accept these.

 

So, English versions of sutras translated from the Tibetan canon are generally considered as accurate.

 

Btw, Hinayana is not a derogatory term, it's simply the name of one of the three principle 'streams' of Buddhist teachings.  Theravada, on the other hand, is the name of one of the 18 philosophical schools that arose out of the Buddha's teaching.

For a comprehensive discussion as to why 'Hinayana' can be considered derogatory, see http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha140.htm

Sent from my Samsung

[Emdog]

Hmmm I wonder why the Buddha would die, but the Arhants would be alive to this day? Something seems fishy there. According to the texts, Buddha said he did not have a "closed fist" system: there were no secret doctrines or any of that. Now we can guess all sorts of motives why these "secrets" may have been added later, if it was, etc til the cows come home. My view is keep it simple, do your practice as best you can, and leave the hair splitting to those who are attached to all that sort of "gospel" disputes.

[weary]

I know that there is much doubt among many of the literal truth of the bible, since it has passed through many translations and had many authors of many parts which were eventually decided upon by a council as to what would be included and what left out.

Although the Pali texts were first written several hundred years after the Buddha's Parinibbana the teachings were kept alive by a tradition of memorisation and chanting. But, what for me leads to my conviction in their veracity is the fact that at that time there were still many Arahants, and it was these Arahants who were involved in the memorising and eventual writing down. Since Arahants are beyond corruption I do not think they would alter anything plus their state would enhance their ability to remember and recall.

Hi Fred.

Technically, involving Arahants would assure uncorrupted teachings.

However, due to the nature of Awakening, an audience would have no idea whether one had achieved Arahantship or not.

Knowing how powerful attachment to Greed, Aversion & Delusion is, I'd imagine there would have been many with large ego's purporting to know the truth.

who determines on what basis that a person has become an "Arahant"?

My understanding is that Awakening comes from wisdom gained from personal experience and cannot be taught or conveyed verbally or otherwise.

This suggests that only an Arahant him/herself or another Awakened being.

On the other hand others can tell if one is not an Arahant due to displays of attachment to Ego.

I think Naam's question is very crucial. Some Buddhist traditions, such as the Burmese, have developed 'maps' of progress in insight, and the common goal posts on the way are defined in these maps. They used to only be known to the initiated, but are nowadays easily found online for anyone interested in pursuing the issue.

As far as I have gathered, if a person upon interrogation and extended observation of his meditation instructor is found to display the required understanding and behaviour of an arahant, then that will be deemed to be the case. There is no perfect 'scientific grade' double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized test of this , but the recommendations in the scriptures for would-be disciples of a certain meditation master is to observe and ponder the teachings and behaviour of that person for an extended period of time to see if they live up to what is described in the scriptures as expected of a being who has reached the highest state of enlightenment (there are four stages of enlightenment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment .

Interestingly, recent neuroscientific examinations (EEG and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) of (claimed) enlightened people reveal some features not found in others, one such being the experience of nirodha (cessation) which signifies not arahantship, but having reached the highest jhanic (absorption state) level mentioned in the scriptures - admittedly, this is supposedly possible to achieve without being an arahant.

Also interestingly, these people say they experience nirodhas in their everyday life with varying frequency.

The book 'Saints and Psychopaths' by the late Bill Hamilton could also shed some light on the issue if you really want to get into it.

[fabianfred]

An Arahant would know him or her self that they have achieved the goal. In the Buddha's time one could go to him for confirmation. Often in the scriptures there are stories where one Arahant does not recognise that another has also reached that state.

There are some monks even now, I believe LP Jaran to be one, who have the ability to know ones thoughts and also can see ones past karma and even something of ones possible future. Such a one can also know the spiritual state of a being, whether one has reached Stream-entry or beyond. Such beings are rare and would not make statements disclosing such just for entertainment and perhaps only privately to the one concerned.

It is my understanding from many stories in the scriptures that beings in the higher realms, sometimes referred to as gods, such as Brahma or Indra etc., have creative powers, and can also manifest themselves in the human or other realms for certain reasons, taking on whatever form they desire for their purpose. Still stuck in Samsara they are inferior to an Arahant who has escaped (normal) rebirth.

But what is to prevent a past Buddha or Arahant, who is beyond rebirth, from appearing in the human or other realms, taking upon themselves a human form. They have not been born in the usual sense, but have allowed themselves to be seen by those they want for the purpose of teaching them.

Ajarn Mun talked about being visited and shown many things by past Buddhas and Arahants after he attained to that state. One might guess that these were only images which appeared to him as visions. LP Jaran was encouraged by one he referred to as 'The monk in the forest' or 'LP dam' who appeared at a certain place in the forest for many years until LP Jaran was born and eventually led to meet him by an old man who was village headman and remembered seeing him there when he was a boy, but the monk's appearance was unchanged, no apparent aging.

Thus the claim that Theravada Arahants are selfishly aiming for only personal salvation, whilst Mahayana Boddhisattvas are more compassionate and will stand at the door of Nirvana holding it open until every last being has gone through first....seems a bit silly. If arahants and Buddhas CAN be able to return as necessary, but not be reborn, they can still help many beings...those who are ready.

Remember the old Asian saying ...'When the student is ready, the teacher will appear...'

[rockyysdt]

That we may never really know fully what the Buddha taught is your interpretation of how the teaching abide and were/are maintained. I don't hold that view. The Dharma is indestructable and not subject to the circumstances of time and place. The 16 Arhants, who were direct disciples of the Buddha, vowed to stay in the world to assist sentient beings. According to Tibetan sources, the reincarnation histories of each of the 16 Arhants has been recorded including up to the present.

Hi Jawnie.

Then why is Buddhism currently in such a mess in terms of?:

• Significant division amongst Sanghas/Sects.
• Wildly conflicting Interpretation of Dharma .
• Extensive disagreement of the validity of texts.

If there are those who are providing assistance, what have they offered in terms of clarifying interpretation of what the Buddha actually taught and which specific practices to follow?

[fabianfred]

This idea of 16 Arahants direct disciples of the Buddha... certainly not a Theravada teaching. At the time of the Buddha there were many more than 16 Arahants and many achieved that state from his teachings, and also from teachings by his own disciples.

I personally have never really liked the elitist, secretive attitude towards the teachings which Mahayana seems to favour...... direct transmission....personal guru... special this....exclusive that...

That's why i prefer the more simple and basic Theravada.

[rockyysdt]

This idea of 16 Arahants direct disciples of the Buddha... certainly not a Theravada teaching. At the time of the Buddha there were many more than 16 Arahants and many achieved that state from his teachings, and also from teachings by his own disciples.

I personally have never really liked the elitist, secretive attitude towards the teachings which Mahayana seems to favour...... direct transmission....personal guru... special this....exclusive that...

That's why i prefer the more simple and basic Theravada.

This is the heart of the problem.

What each of us prefer vs the truth.

As Naan inquired, "how do we know?"

[beautifulthailand99]

Easybullet,

I would recommend against trying to read the Pali scriptures in the way that you might read the Bible. The main reason is that the Buddhist scriptures are much, much larger - the estimate I've heard is that the Tipitaka is about 11 times longer than the Bible. Also, it has three main sections. Basically, one is concerned with philosophy, one with the Buddha's teachings/sayings/parables/etc., and one with the rules that apply to the Sangha (the clergy, i.e. monks). You don't really need to read that last part anyway.

Instead, I suggest reading "In the Buddha's Word: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon" by Bhikku Bodi. He basically reorganizes key passages from the Tipitaka, distills out the important text, and presents it that way. He also provides his own introductions, explaining what is being taught in each section. I have really enjoyed this. Of course, there are also several very good short introductions to Buddhism that don't use the canon directly, such as "Buddhism in a Nutshell" and "Buddhism Plain and Simple."

Regarding the different sects - Thai Buddhism is Theravada, relying on the Pali Canon (the oldest surviving texts). Other types of Buddhism are Mahayana, mostly based on the Chinese canon (somewhat later). Theravada has the reputation for being fairly conservative, and fairly academic (yes, yes, I know that sounds ironic). There is an emphasis on learning and on breathing meditation. Mahayana Buddhism is seen as more diverse and progressive, and emphasises loving kindness and compassion in its meditation.

That's a very crude overview and I'm not a Buddhist scholar, but I hope it gets you started.

Thanks for that just ordered it on Amazon - it will be my companion book for my next trip to Thailand in the New Year.

[Bpuumike]

Easybullet,

I would recommend against trying to read the Pali scriptures in the way that you might read the Bible. The main reason is that the Buddhist scriptures are much, much larger - the estimate I've heard is that the Tipitaka is about 11 times longer than the Bible. Also, it has three main sections. Basically, one is concerned with philosophy, one with the Buddha's teachings/sayings/parables/etc., and one with the rules that apply to the Sangha (the clergy, i.e. monks). You don't really need to read that last part anyway.

Instead, I suggest reading "In the Buddha's Word: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon" by Bhikku Bodi. He basically reorganizes key passages from the Tipitaka, distills out the important text, and presents it that way. He also provides his own introductions, explaining what is being taught in each section. I have really enjoyed this. Of course, there are also several very good short introductions to Buddhism that don't use the canon directly, such as "Buddhism in a Nutshell" and "Buddhism Plain and Simple."

Regarding the different sects - Thai Buddhism is Theravada, relying on the Pali Canon (the oldest surviving texts). Other types of Buddhism are Mahayana, mostly based on the Chinese canon (somewhat later). Theravada has the reputation for being fairly conservative, and fairly academic (yes, yes, I know that sounds ironic). There is an emphasis on learning and on breathing meditation. Mahayana Buddhism is seen as more diverse and progressive, and emphasises loving kindness and compassion in its meditation.

That's a very crude overview and I'm not a Buddhist scholar, but I hope it gets you started.

Thanks for that just ordered it on Amazon - it will be my companion book for my next trip to Thailand in the New Year.

If you are seriously interested you don't need to wait till you come to Thailand.

Best wishes in your progress.

[beautifulthailand99]

Many thanks Bpuumike - I shall begin reading this book the moment the book gets into my hands but will probably procrastinate all my way to nibbana.

[Bpuumike]

Many thanks Bpuumike - I shall begin reading this book the moment the book gets into my hands but will probably procrastinate all my way to nibbana.

Ah, procrastination, it's what I do best.

Only replying this quickly,(very rarely), as about to be overwhelmed by the festive season.

Have a good trip and as always, Post or PM if you need any assistance

[bankei]

That we may never really know fully what the Buddha taught is your interpretation of how the teaching abide and were/are maintained. I don't hold that view. The Dharma is indestructable and not subject to the circumstances of time and place. The 16 Arhants, who were direct disciples of the Buddha, vowed to stay in the world to assist sentient beings. According to Tibetan sources, the reincarnation histories of each of the 16 Arhants has been recorded including up to the present.

Hi Jawnie.

Then why is Buddhism currently in such a mess in terms of?:

• Significant division amongst Sanghas/Sects.
• Wildly conflicting Interpretation of Dharma .
• Extensive disagreement of the validity of texts.

If there are those who are providing assistance, what have they offered in terms of clarifying interpretation of what the Buddha actually taught and which specific practices to follow?

This has been the case since the time of the Buddha. Just after the Buddha's death there was division of the sangha into different sects. Different interpretations existed while the Buddha was alive - he often had to 'correct' monks. And when the Buddha died and the teachings were rehearsed there was one monk, Purana from memory, who refused to agree with the official line on the teachings. He said words to the effect that he would like to remember the teachings as he heard it not as it was remembered by the council members.

[Jawnie]

Hmmm I wonder why the Buddha would die, but the Arhants would be alive to this day? Something seems fishy there. According to the texts, Buddha said he did not have a "closed fist" system: there were no secret doctrines or any of that. Now we can guess all sorts of motives why these "secrets" may have been added later, if it was, etc til the cows come home. My view is keep it simple, do your practice as best you can, and leave the hair splitting to those who are attached to all that sort of "gospel" disputes.

The Buddha did not die, he demonstrated impermanence.

[Jawnie]

That we may never really know fully what the Buddha taught is your interpretation of how the teaching abide and were/are maintained. I don't hold that view. The Dharma is indestructable and not subject to the circumstances of time and place. The 16 Arhants, who were direct disciples of the Buddha, vowed to stay in the world to assist sentient beings. According to Tibetan sources, the reincarnation histories of each of the 16 Arhants has been recorded including up to the present.

Hi Jawnie.

Then why is Buddhism currently in such a mess in terms of?:

• Significant division amongst Sanghas/Sects.
• Wildly conflicting Interpretation of Dharma .
• Extensive disagreement of the validity of texts.

If there are those who are providing assistance, what have they offered in terms of clarifying interpretation of what the Buddha actually taught and which specific practices to follow?

Check my auto-signature phrase, "If two scholars agree, one is not a scholar; if two siddhas disagree, one not a siddha." This is a Tibetan proverb meaning that there will always be disagreements on philosophy, it's what keeps inquiry alive, fresh and meaningful. Fortunately, Buddhists don't go to war with each other over their differences. For the other part, a siddha is someone who has achieved a high state of realization and, according to the proverb, that realization is unmistakeable and beyond fault. Hence, if someone claims to be a siddha but there is a dispute about the quality of that realization, then one of them is not truly realized, ie., is not a siddha. That is to say, there is no mistake in Buddha nature; if someone perceives a mistake in Buddha nature, it is really the impure perception of the one who finds fault.

[rockyysdt]

Check my auto-signature phrase, "If two scholars agree, one is not a scholar; if two siddhas disagree, one not a siddha." This is a Tibetan proverb meaning that there will always be disagreements on philosophy, it's what keeps inquiry alive, fresh and meaningful. Fortunately, Buddhists don't go to war with each other over their differences. For the other part, a siddha is someone who has achieved a high state of realization and, according to the proverb, that realization is unmistakeable and beyond fault. Hence, if someone claims to be a siddha but there is a dispute about the quality of that realization, then one of them is not truly realized, ie., is not a siddha. That is to say, there is no mistake in Buddha nature; if someone perceives a mistake in Buddha nature, it is really the impure perception of the one who finds fault.

Yes, but this Siddha is only known to him/herself or to other Siddhas.

Where are the guides?

The interpretations of Dharma are so wide and numerous, they are tangential (will never meet).

Discussion and debate of the unknown is healthy, but spending a lifetime practicing a misunderstanding is cruel.

Edited December 29, 2013 by rockyysdt

[huli]

Check my auto-signature phrase, "If two scholars agree, one is not a scholar; if two siddhas disagree, one not a siddha." This is a Tibetan proverb meaning that there will always be disagreements on philosophy, it's what keeps inquiry alive, fresh and meaningful. Fortunately, Buddhists don't go to war with each other over their differences. For the other part, a siddha is someone who has achieved a high state of realization and, according to the proverb, that realization is unmistakeable and beyond fault. Hence, if someone claims to be a siddha but there is a dispute about the quality of that realization, then one of them is not truly realized, ie., is not a siddha. That is to say, there is no mistake in Buddha nature; if someone perceives a mistake in Buddha nature, it is really the impure perception of the one who finds fault.

Yes, but this Siddha is only known to him/herself or to other Siddhas.

Where are the guides?

The interpretations of Dharma are so wide and numerous, they are tangential (will never meet).

Discussion and debate of the unknown is healthy, but spending a lifetime practicing a misunderstanding is cruel.

Buddha said that we should examine any teachings for ourselves, and we will be able to tell if they make sense or not (Kalamas).

If a person sticks to Theravada, the interpretation of the dharma is pretty consistent IMO. Once you allow for the Mahayana and the Tibetans, sure, it can get all over the place, perhaps even "tangential" in some respects.

Doubt in the Buddhist Path is one of the 5 basic hindrances and will prevent any progress on this Path. If you think about it, this teaching about doubt makes sense, so it can be accepted.

Spending one's life as a Buddhist, yet having doubt in the Path, is pitiful, and surely worse than having a misunderstanding (which is a noun not a verb). I mean, us regular people don't understand everything perfectly, who knows if we ever will, but that doesn't mean we are "practicing a misunderstanding".

Certain Pali scholars have made their reputation in casting doubt on the dharma in creative ways. It boils down to, either you follow them to nowhere, or get back to the basics that make sense to you.

Respectfully submitted

[rockyysdt]

Check my auto-signature phrase, "If two scholars agree, one is not a scholar; if two siddhas disagree, one not a siddha." This is a Tibetan proverb meaning that there will always be disagreements on philosophy, it's what keeps inquiry alive, fresh and meaningful. Fortunately, Buddhists don't go to war with each other over their differences. For the other part, a siddha is someone who has achieved a high state of realization and, according to the proverb, that realization is unmistakeable and beyond fault. Hence, if someone claims to be a siddha but there is a dispute about the quality of that realization, then one of them is not truly realized, ie., is not a siddha. That is to say, there is no mistake in Buddha nature; if someone perceives a mistake in Buddha nature, it is really the impure perception of the one who finds fault.

Yes, but this Siddha is only known to him/herself or to other Siddhas.

Where are the guides?

The interpretations of Dharma are so wide and numerous, they are tangential (will never meet).

Discussion and debate of the unknown is healthy, but spending a lifetime practicing a misunderstanding is cruel.

Buddha said that we should examine any teachings for ourselves, and we will be able to tell if they make sense or not (Kalamas).

If a person sticks to Theravada, the interpretation of the dharma is pretty consistent IMO. Once you allow for the Mahayana and the Tibetans, sure, it can get all over the place, perhaps even "tangential" in some respects.

Doubt in the Buddhist Path is one of the 5 basic hindrances and will prevent any progress on this Path. If you think about it, this teaching about doubt makes sense, so it can be accepted.

Spending one's life as a Buddhist, yet having doubt in the Path, is pitiful, and surely worse than having a misunderstanding (which is a noun not a verb). I mean, us regular people don't understand everything perfectly, who knows if we ever will, but that doesn't mean we are "practicing a misunderstanding".

Certain Pali scholars have made their reputation in casting doubt on the dharma in creative ways. It boils down to, either you follow them to nowhere, or get back to the basics that make sense to you.

Respectfully submitted

Hi Huli.

It's important, that once committed one should travel without attachment to doubt.

My words relate to an earlier post indicating the presence amongst us of guides who can ensure our way.

I then described a situation where the Buddhas teachings currently have many interpretations/practices making it difficult to even know which path to follow.

You have indicated Theravada is close to the mark, but much scripture as well as many followers will disagree.

These are my points.

What makes followers choose a certain path, and make them doubt others?

Where are the guides who can point the way of the correct path/practice?

If one chooses the wrong path to follow, self experience can take a lifetime.

Such followers can be in their last years, motivated by fear they have succumbed to doubt, continuing to practice fruitlessly.

Finally, it's not about doubting the Buddha, but rather, understanding what he actually taught, not what others interpreted what he taught.

Edited December 30, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

If a person sticks to Theravada, the interpretation of the dharma is pretty consistent IMO. Once you allow for the Mahayana and the Tibetans, sure, it can get all over the place, perhaps even "tangential" in some respects.

I'm finding there is a lot of "pick & choose", not only on which scriptures but also which interpretations.

We're talking about practices which can take a lifetime to master.

Practices which have the power to alter our habits.

Once we adopt new habits, right or wrong, why would we reject them? Especially if we are conditioned to believe they are the Buddhas teaching.

If you go out there and do a survey you'll find interpretations, paths and practices are all over the place.

Even the one you subscribe to contains a myriad of interpretation.

Edited December 30, 2013 by rockyysdt

[huli]

If a person sticks to Theravada, the interpretation of the dharma is pretty consistent IMO. Once you allow for the Mahayana and the Tibetans, sure, it can get all over the place, perhaps even "tangential" in some respects.

I'm finding there is a lot of "pick & choose", not only on which scriptures but also which interpretations.

We're talking about practices which can take a lifetime to master.

Practices which have the power to alter our habits.

Once we adopt new habits, right or wrong, why would we reject them? Especially if we are conditioned to believe they are the Buddhas teaching.

If you go out there and do a survey you'll find interpretations, paths and practices are all over the place.

Even the one you subscribe to contains a myriad of interpretation.

Hi Rocky,

I agree with you that it is a problem figuring out who to listen to in this world, about Buddhism or anything else. If we believe or follow the wrong person or "guide" for a long time, it would be a waste of time or "a cruel misunderstanding" as you put it.

That's why Buddha said to judge for yourself if a person makes sense or not before believing them.

If a person is following a guide for years fruitlessly, I think that person should reasonably doubt that guide. However, the basic Buddhist teachings make sense, so there is no reason to doubt those.

As you mentioned, some people on this forum say that everyone needs a guide, and there are such guides. I don't think that was what Buddha said though. Didn't he say to follow his teachings after he was gone?

Now, you may say what teachings? The teachings on the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and the ones on how to meditate. These particular sutras are not subject to misinterpretation, or barely so, IMHO.

In summary, the Buddhist Path is not one of "picking and choosing", with "paths and practices all over the place", and "myriad interpretations".

Or that would be my take on it. Thank you for the dialogue.

Respectfully submitted.

[lotus260]

If a person sticks to Theravada, the interpretation of the dharma is pretty consistent IMO. Once you allow for the Mahayana and the Tibetans, sure, it can get all over the place, perhaps even "tangential" in some respects.

I'm finding there is a lot of "pick & choose", not only on which scriptures but also which interpretations.

We're talking about practices which can take a lifetime to master.

Practices which have the power to alter our habits.

Once we adopt new habits, right or wrong, why would we reject them? Especially if we are conditioned to believe they are the Buddhas teaching.

If you go out there and do a survey you'll find interpretations, paths and practices are all over the place.

Even the one you subscribe to contains a myriad of interpretation.

But the practice does not take a life time to master, there is scientific research done on this and well established these days even to the extent that the Medical Profession had to invent a new field of study called Neuroplasticity.

The old idea that the brain stopped wiring few years after one is born is yesteryear. If one wishers so can change the mind hence the brain very fast. For an ordinary people even an hour of meditation a day can produce substantial changes in the brain structure in almost no time, yet alone an retreat.

Please have a look starting from Dan Rather Reports - Mind Science

BTW, when one start practicing, one no longer need any scientific evidence as one would know for himself/herself that those tendencies which were removed no longer arises. That is an inherent quality of the training/path.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.101.than.html

"Just as when a carpenter or carpenter's apprentice sees the marks of his fingers or thumb on the handle of his adze but does not know, 'Today my adze handle wore down this much, or yesterday it wore down that much, or the day before yesterday it wore down this much,' still he knows it is worn through when it is worn through. In the same way, when a monk dwells devoting himself to development, he does not know, 'Today my effluents wore down this much, or yesterday they wore down that much, or the day before yesterday they wore down this much,' still he knows they are worn through when they are worn through.

Respectfully submitted.

[Jawnie]

Through the ages, there have always been people who know the absolute truth and are therefore competent and qualified to teach it and recognize others' realization. In the case of the Mahayana and Vajrayana, there have been many such beings who have appeared. This relates to the idea of reincarnation and the fruits of successful practice. In Mahayana and Vajrayana, realized beings do not simply end their physical existence. Those who have taken the Bodhisattva vow reincarnate as spiritually evolved beings. Moreover, a single spiritually evolved being may do this for many, many human lifetimes. For example, HH Dudjom Rinpoche, at Tibetan master of the mid-20th century was recognized as the most highly realized master from among all Tibetan schools. His incarnation lineage includes that in a previous life, he was Shariputra, one of Shakaymuni's closets disciples. Hinayanists don't accept this but it is a deeply held belief among all Tibetan schools. As further example, by the time Dudjom Rinpoche was 14 years old, he had already mastered all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism and, at that age, lead large month-long ceremonies attended by 1,000s of monks and lamas.

The question always arises, "Who decides that such-and-such person is a spiritually realized being?" Beings like Dudjom Rinpoche and others are foretold in histories and predictions left by previous masters. Also, such beings don't get to rest on their laurels...they must prove themselves. As mentioned, Dudjom Rinpoche was able to lead large groups of monks and lama through very complex, month-long ceremonies at the age of 14. No one who was not fully realized could ever accomplish it, a charlatan could not, a phony couldn't, even a very smart and well-trained monk could not - it would be impossible for someone to simply do so. It's not be any different than claiming your are great physicist but know very little about physics - you'd be discovered in two seconds by those who did know. There are many such examples in the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. It is in the Hinayana where so many doubts about this still linger.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Jawnie

[rockyysdt]

Through the ages, there have always been people who know the absolute truth and are therefore competent and qualified to teach it and recognize others' realization. In the case of the Mahayana and Vajrayana, there have been many such beings who have appeared. This relates to the idea of reincarnation and the fruits of successful practice. In Mahayana and Vajrayana, realized beings do not simply end their physical existence. Those who have taken the Bodhisattva vow reincarnate as spiritually evolved beings. Moreover, a single spiritually evolved being may do this for many, many human lifetimes. For example, HH Dudjom Rinpoche, at Tibetan master of the mid-20th century was recognized as the most highly realized master from among all Tibetan schools. His incarnation lineage includes that in a previous life, he was Shariputra, one of Shakaymuni's closets disciples. Hinayanists don't accept this but it is a deeply held belief among all Tibetan schools. As further example, by the time Dudjom Rinpoche was 14 years old, he had already mastered all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism and, at that age, lead large month-long ceremonies attended by 1,000s of monks and lamas.

The question always arises, "Who decides that such-and-such person is a spiritually realized being?" Beings like Dudjom Rinpoche and others are foretold in histories and predictions left by previous masters. Also, such beings don't get to rest on their laurels...they must prove themselves. As mentioned, Dudjom Rinpoche was able to lead large groups of monks and lama through very complex, month-long ceremonies at the age of 14. No one who was not fully realized could ever accomplish it, a charlatan could not, a phony couldn't, even a very smart and well-trained monk could not - it would be impossible for someone to simply do so. It's not be any different than claiming your are great physicist but know very little about physics - you'd be discovered in two seconds by those who did know. There are many such examples in the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. It is in the Hinayana where so many doubts about this still linger.

I don't know from which sutta/writing, but didn't even the Buddha himself say: "I am not omnipotent!".

If he wasn't, how could Dudjom Rinpoche be?

[Jawnie]

Through the ages, there have always been people who know the absolute truth and are therefore competent and qualified to teach it and recognize others' realization. In the case of the Mahayana and Vajrayana, there have been many such beings who have appeared. This relates to the idea of reincarnation and the fruits of successful practice. In Mahayana and Vajrayana, realized beings do not simply end their physical existence. Those who have taken the Bodhisattva vow reincarnate as spiritually evolved beings. Moreover, a single spiritually evolved being may do this for many, many human lifetimes. For example, HH Dudjom Rinpoche, at Tibetan master of the mid-20th century was recognized as the most highly realized master from among all Tibetan schools. His incarnation lineage includes that in a previous life, he was Shariputra, one of Shakaymuni's closets disciples. Hinayanists don't accept this but it is a deeply held belief among all Tibetan schools. As further example, by the time Dudjom Rinpoche was 14 years old, he had already mastered all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism and, at that age, lead large month-long ceremonies attended by 1,000s of monks and lamas.

The question always arises, "Who decides that such-and-such person is a spiritually realized being?" Beings like Dudjom Rinpoche and others are foretold in histories and predictions left by previous masters. Also, such beings don't get to rest on their laurels...they must prove themselves. As mentioned, Dudjom Rinpoche was able to lead large groups of monks and lama through very complex, month-long ceremonies at the age of 14. No one who was not fully realized could ever accomplish it, a charlatan could not, a phony couldn't, even a very smart and well-trained monk could not - it would be impossible for someone to simply do so. It's not be any different than claiming your are great physicist but know very little about physics - you'd be discovered in two seconds by those who did know. There are many such examples in the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. It is in the Hinayana where so many doubts about this still linger.

I don't know from which sutta/writing, but didn't even the Buddha himself say: "I am not omnipotent!".

If he wasn't, how could Dudjom Rinpoche be?

No, my understanding is that when one attains Buddhahood, it includes omnipotence: knowing the past, present, and future of all beings.

[Jawnie]

Through the ages, there have always been people who know the absolute truth and are therefore competent and qualified to teach it and recognize others' realization. In the case of the Mahayana and Vajrayana, there have been many such beings who have appeared. This relates to the idea of reincarnation and the fruits of successful practice. In Mahayana and Vajrayana, realized beings do not simply end their physical existence. Those who have taken the Bodhisattva vow reincarnate as spiritually evolved beings. Moreover, a single spiritually evolved being may do this for many, many human lifetimes. For example, HH Dudjom Rinpoche, at Tibetan master of the mid-20th century was recognized as the most highly realized master from among all Tibetan schools. His incarnation lineage includes that in a previous life, he was Shariputra, one of Shakaymuni's closets disciples. Hinayanists don't accept this but it is a deeply held belief among all Tibetan schools. As further example, by the time Dudjom Rinpoche was 14 years old, he had already mastered all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism and, at that age, lead large month-long ceremonies attended by 1,000s of monks and lamas.

The question always arises, "Who decides that such-and-such person is a spiritually realized being?" Beings like Dudjom Rinpoche and others are foretold in histories and predictions left by previous masters. Also, such beings don't get to rest on their laurels...they must prove themselves. As mentioned, Dudjom Rinpoche was able to lead large groups of monks and lama through very complex, month-long ceremonies at the age of 14. No one who was not fully realized could ever accomplish it, a charlatan could not, a phony couldn't, even a very smart and well-trained monk could not - it would be impossible for someone to simply do so. It's not be any different than claiming your are great physicist but know very little about physics - you'd be discovered in two seconds by those who did know. There are many such examples in the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. It is in the Hinayana where so many doubts about this still linger.

I don't know from which sutta/writing, but didn't even the Buddha himself say: "I am not omnipotent!".

If he wasn't, how could Dudjom Rinpoche be?

No, my understanding is that when one attains Buddhahood, it includes omnipotence: knowing the past, present, and future of all beings.

Omniscient is the word I'm looking for, not omnipotent. Omnipotence is a slightly different matter and I wasn't trying to say that.

[huli]

Through the ages, there have always been people who know the absolute truth and are therefore competent and qualified to teach it and recognize others' realization. In the case of the Mahayana and Vajrayana, there have been many such beings who have appeared. This relates to the idea of reincarnation and the fruits of successful practice. In Mahayana and Vajrayana, realized beings do not simply end their physical existence. Those who have taken the Bodhisattva vow reincarnate as spiritually evolved beings. Moreover, a single spiritually evolved being may do this for many, many human lifetimes. For example, HH Dudjom Rinpoche, at Tibetan master of the mid-20th century was recognized as the most highly realized master from among all Tibetan schools. His incarnation lineage includes that in a previous life, he was Shariputra, one of Shakaymuni's closets disciples. Hinayanists don't accept this but it is a deeply held belief among all Tibetan schools. As further example, by the time Dudjom Rinpoche was 14 years old, he had already mastered all four schools of Tibetan Buddhism and, at that age, lead large month-long ceremonies attended by 1,000s of monks and lamas.

The question always arises, "Who decides that such-and-such person is a spiritually realized being?" Beings like Dudjom Rinpoche and others are foretold in histories and predictions left by previous masters. Also, such beings don't get to rest on their laurels...they must prove themselves. As mentioned, Dudjom Rinpoche was able to lead large groups of monks and lama through very complex, month-long ceremonies at the age of 14. No one who was not fully realized could ever accomplish it, a charlatan could not, a phony couldn't, even a very smart and well-trained monk could not - it would be impossible for someone to simply do so. It's not be any different than claiming your are great physicist but know very little about physics - you'd be discovered in two seconds by those who did know. There are many such examples in the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions. It is in the Hinayana where so many doubts about this still linger.

I don't know from which sutta/writing, but didn't even the Buddha himself say: "I am not omnipotent!".

If he wasn't, how could Dudjom Rinpoche be?

No, my understanding is that when one attains Buddhahood, it includes omnipotence: knowing the past, present, and future of all beings.

The capacity to know everything is omniscience.

To have unlimited power is to be omnipotent.

Just saying.

I wouldnt doubt that a Buddha might know the past, present, and future of all beings. But that alone would not make him omniscient, much less omnipotent.