Thread 41456391

I made a post on a Buddhist forum that incidentally used the phrase "preach the Dharma" and I got railed for it.

The Vimalakirti Sutra says,
>Let nobody say, I preach the Dharma
Now if I give the interpretation, that's preaching the Dharma, and I don't want to beg the question.

The Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra says Bodhisattvas spread the Dharma and this teaching, the Diamond Sutra gives merit for spreading it, and the Samadhiraja Sutra says to spread the Dharma as "medicine."

I have the basic insight that Bodhisattvas should not only give food and clothes and material gifts to others, but also should "preach the Dharma," for example cite sutras and recommend virtue to those capable of and willing to hear it.

But these guys on the Buddhist forum. They were like,
>so you have a Master, and he sanctioned this?

These guys kind of just practice by speaking and asking questions about Buddhism to other Buddhists in a sort of, dare I say, echo chamber.

So I am wondering, isn't preaching the Dharma, and not just giving material gifts, part of the Bodhisattva vow (for Zen/Mahayana), or is this something Masters say, that lay people shouldn't preach the Dharma?

It seems recommended by the Sutras, and I don't mean preach in the sense of proselytizing.

The furthest I got was that the point of Omniscience (the goal of Mahayana according to Lotus, Avatamsaka, and many other sutras) is to preach the Dharma and spread the Wisdom of the Buddhas, and not just to immediately remove suffering from homeless people and Christians.

This is what I mean by preaching the Dharma, the Lotus Sutra says sravakas and pratykabuddhas don't perceive the Wisdom of the Buddha, and all the disciples were surprised that there is Wisdom culminating in Omniscience to be obtained from the path (Single Vehicle toward All-Knowledge), and not just renouncing the world and going to Nirvana for yourself.

That's how I preach the Dharma, but I am wondering if it's okay or do Masters proscribe it?

>>41456391 (OP)
Don't preach the dharma. We don't do that, that's what Christians do.

Don't even talk about it on here. This is the worst place in the world to talk about the religion, this website is predatory and would sooner seek to destroy it from the inside out than it would to uphold it.

We don't talk about the religion to others unless we know they are interested. If you go about preaching, all you do is make it so people despise you. Nobody likes being preached at.

What we do instead is share the dharma through action. We might recite sutras in public, but we don't do it to convert or preach. If someone has questions, we answer truthfully. Everything comes back to action. This is why generosity is foundational. We aren't an orthodoxy. We don't need to convert people.

For the love of buddha, stop trying to share it on this board. This is the worst place for that.

Enlightened Christian Buddha here, someone must have preached because Buddhists make up roughly 5% of the global population.

>>41456391 (OP)
>The key to Mahayana Buddhism is to hump trash

>>41456414
I like talking about the Dharma and the Sangha is one of the three Jewels. But I guess here is a misunderstanding of mine, as I'm not sure 4chan qualifies as a Sangha so much.

The title is kind of deceptive because I don't mean spreading the Dharma so thH more people "convert" to Buddhism. That seems to be what you reacted against.

I mean spreading Dharmic teachings to ease suffering and tend people toward Enlightenment.

The merits of e.g. the Diamond Sutra are very tempting for me, for example in a Solipsist thread I might say, well you don't exist either, citing the Prajnaparamita Sutra.

That's just an unskillful example. I really mean citing and interpreting Sutras in response to questions, but actually the Holy Spirit told me to stop since I don't have a teacher, so I guess I already know the answer.

>>41456391 (OP)
Not every Buddhist is capable of preaching the dharma, because the abilities are divided in different ways among Buddhists. A farmer is not an orator, he does not have the mind of a sage, he cannot preach the dharma, but he cultivates the land and feeds people, livestock and animals, therefore he is useful.

>>41456414
Theravada oldfag lurker here.
Pretty much this.

I come from a Mahayana background, and practice Theravada now, but preaching was always taught to be a no no in my Sanghas. If you want people to take an interest in the Dharma, let it be through your conduct.
If your conduct isn't sufficient enough to inspire as of yet, you really shouldn't be wasting your time trying to preach anyways.

>>41456493
Now I'm just a small town Chicken Jockey but isn't "all are one" a central principal of enlightenment?
If so, isn't gatekeeping the farmer the same as gatekeeping the orator the same as gatekeeping yourself?

>>41456493
Ok I agree with that. I feel capable but I have the inkling that I'm doing something wrong. For me it's all based on the Sutras. I guess I'm just wondering where the line is drawn. Like what am I allowed to do?

>>41456512
Not really? This is a famous western misunderstanding and confusion around dependent origination.

>>41456528
Not really as in the Buddha is not one with all things or not really as in the Buddha being one with all things doesn't make the farmer and the orator and yourself the Buddha?

>>41456448
Only the wisest of Buddhists understand that the greatest of Christian Buddhists were delivered from the mouth of a talking horse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoBldRsvciM&list=RDYoBldRsvciM&start_radio=1

>>41456528
Diamond Sutra says there's no individuality, which can be taken to mean no separation, but proscribes against an individual or Oversoul. Wiki and AI interpretations of the Avatamsaka Sutra tend to say All is One and One is All, but the text is so long that I haven't found it there.

>>41456550
This was OP and it's exactly what I'm wondering, is this sort of post okay according to a Sangha?

>>41456391 (OP)
Well it says "offer the dharma", but that probably means to give it only to the ones who really want it.

>>41456567
An offer is a presentation of something for acceptance or rejection.

>>41456535
Not really as in the Buddha is not "one with all things".
The Buddha directly sees there is no inherent "Buddha" to begin with, no inherent farmer, no inherent grocery store bagger, etc.

Dependent origination shows how all labels are empty, they are just temporary processes that arise together, not that they are "one".

When a sutra states "A buddha is one with all dharmas" it means that he has fully penetrated the empty conditioned, and impermanent nature of reality. Not that hes blended with all living things in some form of oneness.

That would be vedanta.

>>41456550
Nah, the diamond sutra says this "“No bodhisattva cherishes the idea of an ego, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality.
Why? If a bodhisattva had any of these ideas, they would grasp a self, a being, a life, or a soul.”

No offense to you OP or anyone else, this is exactly why you shouldn't be preaching. Even futher

"“There are no beings at all whom the Tathāgata saves
because in reality there are no beings to be saved.”

This isn't an implication of oneness, this is the opposite. Its a teaching of inherent existence, not some grounded base of reality where all individuals are technically one. Thats again, vedanta.

>>41456577
Interdesting.
So all things are no thing?

>>41456587
Diamond Sutra:
"All things are no-things, if you see all marks as no-marks, then you see the Tathagata"

You could also try to internalize the heart sutra if you want:
"Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. All dharmas are marked with emptiness...."

Buddhism doesn't teach some cosmic blob of oneness, this is one of the biggest wrestling points teachers have with students in pretty much all traditions, and I've seen it repeatedly over and over in various Sanghas.

The whole oneness thing is genuinely just Vedanta. In Buddhism its all just empty phenomenon spurred by on various causes and conditions.

The oneness thing is interesting, but its the main/key point of Vedanta. Not Buddhism.

>>41456602
idk if I understand your distinction.
if all things are no thing then everything is nothing and everything is in fact, one thing, nothing.

>>41456602
Emperor Wu of Liang asked Mahasattva Fu to explain the Diamond Sutra.
Fu went up to the teaching seat. He shook the lectern and immediately came down.
The Emperor was startled.
Duke Zhi asked, “Your Majesty, do you understand?”
“No, I don’t.”
“Mahasattva Fu has finished explaining the sutra.”

>>41456607
You're reifying emptiness to imply a something. This is explicitly rejected in many sutras, sastras, etc.

Nagarjuna:
"Whoever makes emptiness into a view is declared incurable"

There is no one nothing, just as there is no one many somethings. Emptiness isn't a thing.

Not man
Not one
Not nothing
Not something

This is the defining characteristic of the middle way. If you say "everyone is one (even one nothing)" you're still clinging to a view which the diamond sutra explicitly rejects.

>>41456626
Exactly, one word would already be too many
there is no view, no one, no nothing to understand

>>41456634
Are there many nothings, one nothing, or zero nothings?

>>41456652
>How a middle man a whole body?
>ayyy lmao

>>41456652
You're doing it again.
You heard zero nothing and then turned zero into a new 'one thing' you can try to grasp.

Nagarjuna:
“Emptiness wrongly conceived will destroy the conceiver.
It is like grasping a snake by the wrong end.”

You're playing the same game as before, attempting to tie emptiness to a countable, reliable entity.

The question you're asking is in and of itself, the very poison emptiness is fighting. Zen Buddhists would probably say "Mu" if you asked this, and or you'd get smacked for trying.

“The Buddha said: Subhuti, do not think that the Tathāgata holds the view that there is anything to attain. Do not even hold the view that there is nothing to attain.”

good luck friend

>>41456688
So it is not many nothings or that would be anything, nor one nothing, nor zero nothings.

That would all contradict anything to attain or nothing to attain.

Is it supposed to be something you never answer to create a state of mind or is there a solution like Shrodinger's Cat?

>>41456705
>So it is not many nothings or that would be anything, nor one nothing, nor zero nothings.
There you go.

You'll see language frequently like:
Not this, not that, not both, not neither
This is the exhaustion of the tetralemma.

Conceptualizing emptiness is reinforcing delusion and missing the point.

Last quote from Nagarjuna before I go back to work.

"“Whatever is dependently arisen, that we declare to be empty. That very emptiness is also a dependent designation. Therefore, even ‘emptiness’ is empty of inherent existence.”"

>>41456720
oooooooh ok, I think I'm getting it, thanks

>>41456705
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUQlHvvCw7U&list=RDjUQlHvvCw7U&start_radio=1

>Keep it 100

>>41456705
It's beyond categories.

To the wise Buddhist preaching against Oneness, what do you make of this? Pic related (from Zen Scriptures Wiki)

You underestimate my power

>>41456741
I'm the Buddhist anon with the Nagarjuna quotes.
This is the same trap, just wearing Huayan robes lol.

The line ‘one in all, all in one’ is not saying ‘everything collapses into a single substance’.
That would be the exact ‘melting into one whole’ view that Fazang himself destroys in On the Golden Lion.

Heres the Golden Lion quote for reference:
"If you think the gold is the only reality and the lion is illusory, you fall into one-sided emptiness.
If you think lion and gold are both real as separate, you fall into dualism.
If you think they melt into one, you fall into eternalism.
The truth is interpenetration without fusion or separation each phenomenon is empty, therefore it can contain all others, therefore ‘one in all, all in one’ without becoming a single whole.”

If you want even worse, Chengguan was kind of a dick about it to try and help people:
"To say "all melts into one" is the view of true heretics. The dharma realm is non-obstruction of phenomenon with phenomenon, not annihilation into a lump"

I should point out Chengguan and Fazang were MASSIVE proponents of the Avatamsaka sutra, and they are explicitly rejecting your implication.

Now I REALLY need to go back to work haha. Cya friends.

I'm just going to say it because it needs to be said.
Monistic Pluralistic Solipsism.

>>41456761
I dont mean a reified oneness I mean a non-separation which is beyond categories. I guess once you see Indra's net in the Diamond Sutra you have to stop preaching and seek a Master.

Let me wade into this discussion:

https://youtu.be/vAZPWu084m4?si=F-dU9MhDaFqt_Ptz

https://youtu.be/aljTB_Emx4g?si=VK_PfUoU6ONWJJFG

https://youtu.be/Vr10oe5vdIM?si=Fcxzs2esoUr1DPE7

>>41456806
Could you give a TLDR? I'm not gonna watch 3 YouTube videos, I don't like when people do this

>>41456815
Then you must swim upriver anon

>>41456815
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmIw5rIbqB0&list=RDYmIw5rIbqB0&start_radio=1

>Here have the condensed version

>it's undefinable and can't be grasped
>yeah but it's so undefined that even using words like undefined is not undefined enough and I have to bonk you if you try

>>41456391 (OP)
i have been a buddhist for 25 years. i let go of all my childhood trauma. i am insanely powerful. i am a storm god.

>>41456607
It is Theseus ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Try to get what is the Ship of Theseus, when it stops being Ship of Theseus, there is no answer. You slice it into points of time, what point in time does it stop being Ship of Theseus, there is no answer.

>>41457719
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLAWPrCUQQ0&list=RDnLAWPrCUQQ0&start_radio=1

>>41456391 (OP)
If there's anything sensible about Buddhism its the acceptance that people are what they are

>>41457719
[57c] The prajñāpāramitā is a great path which the Buddha has travelled,
The prajñāpāramitā is a great sea which the Buddha has drained,
The true meaning of the prajñāpāramitās is not closed to the Buddha:
I prostrate to the prajñāpāramitā and the unequalled Buddha.[1]

Ceaseless destruction of the two views of existence and non-existence,[2]
The true nature of the things preached by the Buddha,
Eternal, stable, immutable, purifying the passions:
I prostrate to the venerable Dharma of the Buddha,

The noble Assembly – a great sea – cultivates the field of merits[3]
Śaikṣas and aśaikṣas serve as its ornament,
It has destroyed the thirst that produces rebirths,[4]
Suppressed the feeling of ‘mine’ and destroyed its root.[5]

Having renounced the things of the world,
It is the seat of all the qualities.
It is foremost among all the assemblies:
I prostrate to this Assembly that is pure and full of merits.

Having venerated the Three Jewels whole-heartedly,
I also supplicate the saviors of the world, Maitreya, etc.,
Śāriputra, foremost among sages,
Subhūti, who practices the araṇāsamādhi.[6]

Now, according to my skill, I wish to explain
The true meaning of Mahāprajñaparamitā.
I would wish that all people of great merit and noble wisdom
Give their full attention to my words.

>>41456391 (OP)
The Buddha never preached Dhamma to laypeople, only expounded as much as needed for them when they were already interested.
The limit to what a layperson can learn of Dhamma is the prereqs of Stream Entry such as sense restraint and rational virtue.

In my opinion 99+% of the Suttic and Chan material posted itt is already way over the line and counter-effective. Basically punishment hour for all involved.

>>41458014
Well I don't know I basically worship the Sutras. So I cite them here. How is it punishment? At least I'm not saying, "Put the sublime energy in your prefrontal cortex," I don't make things up, I just cite the Sutras, though I may have a unique perspective.

I have a pretty edifying perspective, for example just to give you an example of Knowledge, I preach the gradual conformity of Philosophy to Buddhadharma based on the Single Vehicle of the Lotus Sutra.

If we believe all religions and philosophies tend toward Omniscience, we can expect the Buddhadharma to be found in Western Intellect.

I was inspired to say this because Anon compared the Ship of Theseus to Prajnaparamita. I have an Ivy League philosophy decree and do the Buddhist stuff instead of getting a PhD in Philosophy.

Note that in the Lankavatara Sutra, Buddha avidly disparages ALL philosophy.

Ship of Theseus perfectly illustrates how the philosophers, grasping at being, approximate the All-Knowledge of the Diamond (Vajra) Prajnaparamita Sutra. Things change over time, and so emptiness is form. It is well-illustrated.

In my thread on the forum (this is OP), they started debating true self. One guy said self can be "immediately experienced." I would've responded, but I swore it off, so it's going here.

In the 18th Century the Scottish Philosopher David Hume recognized that Self is just an association or habit-energy. It could NOT be directly perceived. In Buddhism, these Are the Skandhas.

So you can see how Western Philosophy approximates the Truth. It's actually my commandeering of Christian "Logos as Telos" into the Single Vehicle.

It's sort of an experiment, but I say it works.

Or take Nietzsche's beyond good and evil, whose phrase is literally in the Dhammapada, with Diamond Sutra's
>All Dharmas are empty

Or the Feminist Hegelian "Other," as the idea that when sentient beings are liberated, no sentient being is liberated.
(1/2)

>>41458160
One really cool example, which protests the Telos since I just came up with it today, is Kant's transcendental Idealism and Yogacara.

For Kant, the categories of the Understanding transpose the phenomena of the senses into a coherent "substance" thru apperception (self-reflection), but the noumena (thing in itself) cannot be known.

Compare this with Yogacara. If there is a consistent relationship between Western and Buddhist Enlightenment, this should like up, and it does.

Yogacara according to the Lankavatara says the world is Mind or Idea-only, and we cannot know substances (noumena).

This Single Vehicle teaching truly owns, and although it's slightly Creative I hope I'm not doing a disservice to Masters when I preach the Dharma as I see it!

After all, the Vimalakirti Sutra says to see the Orthodox in the Heterodox is entry on the pathway to non-duality. And Vimalakirti was a layman.

This reminds me of St. Ignatius' principle that you should always interpret the Other as charitably as you can. I really like the saints

(2/2) But if you like my way of teaching philosophy by the Single Vehicle I have many more examples

I just like to preach the Dharma

>>41458160
Punishment because that's what happens to both parties involved when you share knowledge with people who have no way to process it correctly. The Suttas themselves clarify which parts of them are fit for which beings, e.g. for laypeople, for lay followers, for monastics, for one or each of the Four / Eight Noble Disciples...
Sharing Dhamma / what one *thinks would be* Dhamma as less than a Stream Enterer is very hazardous because if one really knew what Dhamma is, suprarationally, that's a Stream Enterer.
So that'd be a contradiction.

>Lankavatara Sutra
I don't accept the Mahayana canon as authentically Buddhist, not even the whole Theravada canon.
Not reading your whole mindmap / stream of thought thing, sorry. I am wholly unconvinced that you are even a lay follower and like more than hearing yourself talk.

>>41459566
No offense, I whitelist not blacklist.

>>41459630
Please elaborate I want to hear your opinions

>>41459659
I refer you to my question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwQw6_X9hPk

>>41458014
There's really no limit to what a layperson can learn of the dhamma, the limiting factor is just how fruitful your practice is. Learn some light jhana and practices for perceiving the 3 marks of existence and a layperson can reach stream entry easy peasy. Keep it up and that layperson can reach sakadagami no problem. Strengthen concentration and make anatta part of your basic intuitive knowledge rather than something you just perceive when looking for it and you can reach anagami (or so I hear, I haven't reached that stage yet). All possible as a lay practitioner.
I've spoken with some chan monks and it sounds like their practice is so concentration-heavy that they don't even start with insight practices until reaching concentration states that lay people would have a very difficult time reaching. I can see how that approach would make it seem inaccessible to lay people, but it doesn't have to be.

>>41460660
Do you think you entered the stream

>>41460660
A layperson by definition does not know what the Dhamma is, and the limiting factor is not just the "conversion rate" of the practice but also what form the "leftover material" takes and whether it gets in the way of more practice towards Stream Entry, if that is the goal.
An Anagami by definition is not a layperson, is not a worldling, is not a mundane person, is not a puthujjanna. What you may mean is a non-monastic, someone who has not ordained into a Buddhist monastic order; more broadly stated, someone who has not vowed to uphold the 10 precepts.

Putting correctness of nomenclature aside...

Ah, well. I am too piled-under to use that stuff in the very short term. I cannot precisely share what my practice method does consist of at this time either.
Practice for perceiving anicca is based on sense-restraint, I know that much. Light jhana, I'll take that term into account but I've not heard of it from any authentic Buddhist source yet, I believe that if it has a real function in practice "jhana" may not be the correct term.

I'll worry about how the Zennists expound the Dhamma when I meet them lol. I've seen the Channists and while mildly helpful, I do not have a taste for the personal character of the Chinese people I've met IRL.

>>41460792
>develop decent concentration and an insight practice that produces a tangible sense of liberating insight
>eventually get a complete cessation (a blip out of existence with a before and an after but no during) followed by weeks of the biggest relief in my life
>relief never fully subsides down to old baseline, have a permanently elevated new baseline level of wellbeing
>have occasional repeat cessations/fruitions
>use to have big fatigue but completely cured it, no longer get sleepy during the daytime
>insight practice now produces a powerful sense of liberating insight just from looking for the three marks of existence without techniques. There's always some though, without looking or even meditating.
Kinda seems that way

>>41460803
By payperson, I mean non-monastic. The specific insight practice I started with was Noting, as taught by Mahasi Sayadaw. Light Jhana is a contemporary term used by practitioners who reach a set of distinct concentration states that match the descriptions of the jhana factors but just aren't that strong, so there's no nimitta and you can still perceive the world around you.

>>41460904
Ah, yeah. A monastic can be a mundane person and not a member of the Arya Sangha. Not a Stream Enterer or beyond. To be factual, not a real Buddhist.
So it doesn't say nearly enough.

Only recently did my faculties become refined enough (again) to do interesting and pleasant contemplation.
I'm probably going to stick it out with the EBT / Theravada clusters until Stream Entry, I should have 2 or more times fewer work left relative to what I put behind me in the past decade. I can commend them for their insistence on clarifying Suttic terms, and for identifying later additions to the Theravdin canon.
FWIW, I don't believe the jhanas are supposed to be occlusive like you describe. First jhana should be possible 24/7 without occlusion, as a lifestyle.

>>41456391 (OP)
Suffering comes from ignorance. Dispelling ignorance reduces karma. Therefor helping others toward truth is good.
However, you, o praiseworthy and illuminated op, are also in ignorance. Without a master, o op, how can you say that you have grasped the dharma? How, respected op, can you, without having lived through the dharma of your caste and gained the siddhis that result from virtuous practice, can you hope to teach others as worthily as one of filial mindset would wish? For the sages have long taught, o venerable op, that worship of a master is the beginning of wisdom!
Indeed, beloved op, to be a master of the Way is to take the karma of others upon oneself and to make their spiritual burdens his. Thus, o studious op, as mastery is fraught with traps and temptations that serve as obstacles to one's own enlightenment, it is said that one may inform of dharma but not seek to teach it.

>>41456806
Anatta/Anatman = NOT self/Atman.

>"Neti neti" is a Sanskrit phrase meaning "neither this, nor that," used in Hinduism as a method of negation to understand the nature of ultimate reality, or Brahman

>>41456652
>Are there many nothings, one nothing, or zero nothings?
The first link in dependent origination is ignorance.

I have affinity for the buddhas
but these threads always suck
you all just pour over one semantic argument after another
ngl pretty annoying desu
I'd tell you that you'd be better served discussing cultivation methods,
but you'll argue over the words used to describe that, too

>>41456493
>A farmer is not an orator, he does not have the mind of a sage,

Selling "liberation" while demanding plebs stay in their place. It's like a microcosm of the whole faith

>>41462791
Whose ignorance?

>>41463844
Who's ignorant is not a valid question, rather when there's āsava as a condition, ignorance arises.