//honeypot demagogic

 Forum DhammaCitta. Forum Diskusi Buddhis Indonesia

Author Topic: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)  (Read 129795 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Triyana2009

  • Sahabat Baik
  • ****
  • Posts: 756
  • Reputasi: 4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #75 on: 24 September 2010, 10:11:28 PM »
Namo Buddhaya,

Sorry OOT nih,
Triyana = 3 jalan,
jalan apa aja nih? Hindu, Buddha dan ............? :-?

Ya kalo anda beranggapan saya keliru, silahkan tunjukan letak kesalahannya   _/\_ Saya tunggu............ :)

 _/\_

Offline Indra

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 14.819
  • Reputasi: 451
  • Gender: Male
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #76 on: 24 September 2010, 10:35:49 PM »
Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Buah pikir yang timbul tenggelam dan dapat diamati dalam meditasi ini bukanlah diri anda yang sesungguhnya.

untuk mempersingkat diskusi, saya akan langsung to the point saja.

sampai pada titik ini Bro Triyana menyatakan (seperti yang di-bold di atas) bahwa ada diri sejati (diri yang sesungguhnya) yg mana statement ini jelas berlawanan secara frontal dengan doktrin Anatta. mohon Bro Triyana sudi menjelaskan dengan jelas dan dengan bahasa yg mudah dipahami.

_/\_



Baik mari kita persingkat :

Menurut pendapat saya yang dimaksud oleh Sang Buddha dengan anatta/anatman(sanskrit) adalah diri kecil anda yang terbentuk karena faktor avidya (kebodohan fundamental) apabila anda mampu menyingkirkan diri kecil anda maka anda akan sampai ke Diri Buddha anda yang adalah anda yang sesungguhnya.

 _/\_

Pernahkah Bro Triyana membaca Anattalakkhana Sutta? bagian manakah dari sutta itu yg mengatakan tentang "diri kecil" ini? Dan dalam banyak Sutta sang Buddha telah mengupas makhluk selapis demi selapis dan tidak pernah ada ditemukan diri besar ataupun kecil. mohon Bro Triyana memberikan referensi atas gagasan ini.

Terima kasih atas reply dari teman-teman di DC Forum ini  :)

Sekarang saya mau jawab pertanyaan bro Indra dulu  :)


Anatta-lakkhana Sutta  ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html )

Menurut pendapat saya Anattalakkhana Sutta adalah benar  :) karena ia menguraikan hal-hal yang memang adalah subyek dari perubahan dan dimana ada perubahan maka ia masih tergolong pada diri kecil dan belum sampai pada Diri Buddha, Buddha telah mengajarkan dengan benar bahwa dengan mengamati faktor-faktor tersebut saja dengan kesadaran terlatih (mindfullness) tanpa anda terikat dengannya maka anda sedikit demi sedikit akan sampai pada Kearahatan dan bahkan Kebuddhaan apabila anda mengikuti Jalan Bodhisattva.
Didalam Mahayana ajaran Yogacara dijelaskan dengan mendetil lagi apa yang terjadi setelah anda menguasai khanda-khanda tersebut dengan baik, masih ada lagi kesadaran-kesadaran lainnya, dan selanjutnya sampai Amala Vijnana (Kesadaran kesembilan) yang merupakan tujuan tertinggi yaitu Kebuddhaan yang merupakan Diri Sejati anda.

 _/\_



menurut Bro Triyana, apakah ajaran Theravada tidak lengkap? dan Dhamma belum sempurna dibabarkan? mengingat dalam Theravada hanya diajarkan 6 jenis kesadaran, dan tidak diajarkan mengenai diri BESAR atau kecil.

bisakah mencantumkan di sini, referensi sehubungan dengan kesadaran yg ada banyak ini dan diri besar kecil ini?

Sebelum saya menjawab pertanyaan bro Indra, ijinkanlah saya untuk sedikit bertanya, didalam Theravada setelah seseorang itu sampai pada tataran Kearahatan apakah ia masih memiliki kesadaran atau tidak?

 _/\_

menurut yg saya pelajari kesadaran adalah bergantung pada landasan2nya, jika seorang arahat masih hidup, berarti landasan2 kesadarannya masih ada, jadi tentu saja masih ada kesadaran. lain halnya jika seorang arahat telah parinibbana

Ketika seorang berlatih Vipasanna dan mengamati ke-6 kesadaran bukankah tidak selamanya selalu buah-buah pikir itu ada, kalo kita sudah cukup lama berlatih maka ada suatu kondisi dimana antara satu buah pikir dan buah pikir lain ada suatu jeda nah selama jeda waktu itu bukankah kita juga masih sadar dan tahu bahwa tidak muncul buah pikir  ^-^

 _/\_

menurut literatur yg saya baca, yg anda maksudkan itu adalah SATI, bukan KESADARAN, yg dalam pengelompokan Abhidhamma termasuk salah satu dari 52 jenis CETASIKA

Well terserah anda menyebutnya apa Sati atau Kesadaran atau definisi apapun, Dalam Vipasanna/Vipasyana (Skt) kita berlatih untuk mengamati dengan kesadaran pada ke-6 khanda tetapi terutama pada buah-buah pikir, nah back to topic mohon dijawab dulu pertanyaan saya  :)

 _/\_

pertanyaan yg manakah yg belum saya jawab?

Yg ini : Ketika seorang berlatih Vipasanna dan mengamati ke-6 kesadaran bukankah tidak selamanya selalu buah-buah pikir itu ada, kalo kita sudah cukup lama berlatih maka ada suatu kondisi dimana antara satu buah pikir dan buah pikir lain ada suatu jeda nah selama jeda waktu itu bukankah kita juga masih sadar dan tahu bahwa tidak muncul buah pikir  ^-^

 _/\_

silahkan anda baca pelan2 quote-quote di atas, pertanyaan itu sudah anda tanyakan dan sudah saya jawab, jika anda mengulangi lagi saya akan menjawab dengan cara yg sama, tapi saya merasa tidak perlu mengetik ulang, karena jawaban saya masih terbaca dalam quote di atas. pelan2 saja bacanya Bro, tidak perlu terburu2

Saya ndak terburu-buru  ^-^ pertanyaan saya sederhana saja jika anda berlatih Vipasanna pada 6 kelompok kesadaran terutama pada bagian pikiran pasti suatu saat ada jeda waktu dimana buah-buah pikir itu tidak muncul, nah pada saat jeda tersebut bukankah anda masih sadar?  :)

 _/\_

Baiklah saya akan bersabar pada anda. pada saat itu kesadaran-mata saya tidak aktif karena mata saya tertutup. kesadaran-telinga mungkin agak melemah tapi tidak sepenuhnya tidak aktif, masih bergantung pada landasan eksternal, jika suara tidak ada maka kesadaran-telinga juga tidak ada, ini juga berlaku pada kesadaran-hidung, kesadaran-lidah, kesadaran-badan dan kesadaran-pikiran. pada saat itu SATI (yg merupakan salah satu dari kelompok CETASIKA) lah yg mengetahui. dan menurut pemahaman saya SATI bukan kesadaran dan bukan DIRI.

kalau anda masih mengulangi pertanyaan yg sama, saya tidak mampu menjelaskan lebih jauh lagi, mungkin member lain bisa membantu

Bukankah seharusnya saya yang bersabar terhadap anda  :), silahkan dibaca : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(Buddhism)   :)

 _/\_



begitu banyak rujukan mengenai SATI dalam sutta tapi anda malah memilih merujuk pada wikipedia, maaf saya lebih suka menggunakan referensi yg lebih reliable seperti yg terdapat dalam PANCA BALA, dalam SATTABOJJHANGA, PANCAINDRIYA, dll.

apaakh anda mau bersabar pada saya atau tidak, who cares....?

Anda harus jujur pada diri sendiri bro  :), dibaca dulu baru ngomong apakah yang ada di Wikipedia itu benar atau salah, kalo benar ya harus diakui benar-lah kalo salah anda musti mampu menunjukan dimana letak kesalahannya, nah itu baru gentlemen.........

 _/\_

saya tidak akan menghakimi apakah wikipedia benar atau salah, jika ini anda anggap tidak gentlemen, again, who cares ...
saya sendiri selalu mengartikan SATI sebagai PERHATIAN, bukan KESADARAN, saya memahami KESADARAN dalam arti 6 kesadaran yg telah saya jelaskan sebelumnya. dan ini juga adalah yg saya pelajari dari sutta2, bukan karangan saya sendiri. dan jika anda juga mau jujur, anda akan mengakui bahwa tidak ada kesadaran lain selain yg 6 itu.

Offline Indra

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 14.819
  • Reputasi: 451
  • Gender: Male
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #77 on: 24 September 2010, 10:38:11 PM »
 [at]  Triyana,
saya sudah melakukan kewajiban saya sebagai peserta diskusi yg baik dengan menjawab pertanyaan2 anda, terlepas apakah anda setuju atau tidak setuju dengan jawaban saya. saya pikir cukup adil jika anda juga menjawab pertanyaan2 saya.

Offline hendrako

  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 1.244
  • Reputasi: 60
  • Gender: Male
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #78 on: 25 September 2010, 09:45:32 AM »
Namo Buddhaya,

Sorry OOT nih,
Triyana = 3 jalan,
jalan apa aja nih? Hindu, Buddha dan ............? :-?

Ya kalo anda beranggapan saya keliru, silahkan tunjukan letak kesalahannya   _/\_ Saya tunggu............ :)

 _/\_

Anggap saja saya menganggap anda keliru, berarti masih kurang 1 agama selain Hindu dan Buddha di dalam Triyana.
Sebelum saya menunjukkan apa yang saya anggap keliru, bisakah bro Triyana memberitahu, jalan atau agama apakah yang satunya lagi selain agama Hindu dan Buddha yang membentuk "Triyana"?
yaa... gitu deh

Offline Triyana2009

  • Sahabat Baik
  • ****
  • Posts: 756
  • Reputasi: 4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #79 on: 25 September 2010, 02:19:29 PM »
Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Buah pikir yang timbul tenggelam dan dapat diamati dalam meditasi ini bukanlah diri anda yang sesungguhnya.

untuk mempersingkat diskusi, saya akan langsung to the point saja.

sampai pada titik ini Bro Triyana menyatakan (seperti yang di-bold di atas) bahwa ada diri sejati (diri yang sesungguhnya) yg mana statement ini jelas berlawanan secara frontal dengan doktrin Anatta. mohon Bro Triyana sudi menjelaskan dengan jelas dan dengan bahasa yg mudah dipahami.

_/\_



Baik mari kita persingkat :

Menurut pendapat saya yang dimaksud oleh Sang Buddha dengan anatta/anatman(sanskrit) adalah diri kecil anda yang terbentuk karena faktor avidya (kebodohan fundamental) apabila anda mampu menyingkirkan diri kecil anda maka anda akan sampai ke Diri Buddha anda yang adalah anda yang sesungguhnya.

 _/\_

Pernahkah Bro Triyana membaca Anattalakkhana Sutta? bagian manakah dari sutta itu yg mengatakan tentang "diri kecil" ini? Dan dalam banyak Sutta sang Buddha telah mengupas makhluk selapis demi selapis dan tidak pernah ada ditemukan diri besar ataupun kecil. mohon Bro Triyana memberikan referensi atas gagasan ini.

Terima kasih atas reply dari teman-teman di DC Forum ini  :)

Sekarang saya mau jawab pertanyaan bro Indra dulu  :)


Anatta-lakkhana Sutta  ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html )

Menurut pendapat saya Anattalakkhana Sutta adalah benar  :) karena ia menguraikan hal-hal yang memang adalah subyek dari perubahan dan dimana ada perubahan maka ia masih tergolong pada diri kecil dan belum sampai pada Diri Buddha, Buddha telah mengajarkan dengan benar bahwa dengan mengamati faktor-faktor tersebut saja dengan kesadaran terlatih (mindfullness) tanpa anda terikat dengannya maka anda sedikit demi sedikit akan sampai pada Kearahatan dan bahkan Kebuddhaan apabila anda mengikuti Jalan Bodhisattva.
Didalam Mahayana ajaran Yogacara dijelaskan dengan mendetil lagi apa yang terjadi setelah anda menguasai khanda-khanda tersebut dengan baik, masih ada lagi kesadaran-kesadaran lainnya, dan selanjutnya sampai Amala Vijnana (Kesadaran kesembilan) yang merupakan tujuan tertinggi yaitu Kebuddhaan yang merupakan Diri Sejati anda.

 _/\_



menurut Bro Triyana, apakah ajaran Theravada tidak lengkap? dan Dhamma belum sempurna dibabarkan? mengingat dalam Theravada hanya diajarkan 6 jenis kesadaran, dan tidak diajarkan mengenai diri BESAR atau kecil.

bisakah mencantumkan di sini, referensi sehubungan dengan kesadaran yg ada banyak ini dan diri besar kecil ini?

Sebelum saya menjawab pertanyaan bro Indra, ijinkanlah saya untuk sedikit bertanya, didalam Theravada setelah seseorang itu sampai pada tataran Kearahatan apakah ia masih memiliki kesadaran atau tidak?

 _/\_

menurut yg saya pelajari kesadaran adalah bergantung pada landasan2nya, jika seorang arahat masih hidup, berarti landasan2 kesadarannya masih ada, jadi tentu saja masih ada kesadaran. lain halnya jika seorang arahat telah parinibbana

Ketika seorang berlatih Vipasanna dan mengamati ke-6 kesadaran bukankah tidak selamanya selalu buah-buah pikir itu ada, kalo kita sudah cukup lama berlatih maka ada suatu kondisi dimana antara satu buah pikir dan buah pikir lain ada suatu jeda nah selama jeda waktu itu bukankah kita juga masih sadar dan tahu bahwa tidak muncul buah pikir  ^-^

 _/\_

menurut literatur yg saya baca, yg anda maksudkan itu adalah SATI, bukan KESADARAN, yg dalam pengelompokan Abhidhamma termasuk salah satu dari 52 jenis CETASIKA

Well terserah anda menyebutnya apa Sati atau Kesadaran atau definisi apapun, Dalam Vipasanna/Vipasyana (Skt) kita berlatih untuk mengamati dengan kesadaran pada ke-6 khanda tetapi terutama pada buah-buah pikir, nah back to topic mohon dijawab dulu pertanyaan saya  :)

 _/\_

pertanyaan yg manakah yg belum saya jawab?

Yg ini : Ketika seorang berlatih Vipasanna dan mengamati ke-6 kesadaran bukankah tidak selamanya selalu buah-buah pikir itu ada, kalo kita sudah cukup lama berlatih maka ada suatu kondisi dimana antara satu buah pikir dan buah pikir lain ada suatu jeda nah selama jeda waktu itu bukankah kita juga masih sadar dan tahu bahwa tidak muncul buah pikir  ^-^

 _/\_

silahkan anda baca pelan2 quote-quote di atas, pertanyaan itu sudah anda tanyakan dan sudah saya jawab, jika anda mengulangi lagi saya akan menjawab dengan cara yg sama, tapi saya merasa tidak perlu mengetik ulang, karena jawaban saya masih terbaca dalam quote di atas. pelan2 saja bacanya Bro, tidak perlu terburu2

Saya ndak terburu-buru  ^-^ pertanyaan saya sederhana saja jika anda berlatih Vipasanna pada 6 kelompok kesadaran terutama pada bagian pikiran pasti suatu saat ada jeda waktu dimana buah-buah pikir itu tidak muncul, nah pada saat jeda tersebut bukankah anda masih sadar?  :)

 _/\_

Baiklah saya akan bersabar pada anda. pada saat itu kesadaran-mata saya tidak aktif karena mata saya tertutup. kesadaran-telinga mungkin agak melemah tapi tidak sepenuhnya tidak aktif, masih bergantung pada landasan eksternal, jika suara tidak ada maka kesadaran-telinga juga tidak ada, ini juga berlaku pada kesadaran-hidung, kesadaran-lidah, kesadaran-badan dan kesadaran-pikiran. pada saat itu SATI (yg merupakan salah satu dari kelompok CETASIKA) lah yg mengetahui. dan menurut pemahaman saya SATI bukan kesadaran dan bukan DIRI.

kalau anda masih mengulangi pertanyaan yg sama, saya tidak mampu menjelaskan lebih jauh lagi, mungkin member lain bisa membantu

Bukankah seharusnya saya yang bersabar terhadap anda  :), silahkan dibaca : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(Buddhism)   :)

 _/\_



begitu banyak rujukan mengenai SATI dalam sutta tapi anda malah memilih merujuk pada wikipedia, maaf saya lebih suka menggunakan referensi yg lebih reliable seperti yg terdapat dalam PANCA BALA, dalam SATTABOJJHANGA, PANCAINDRIYA, dll.

apaakh anda mau bersabar pada saya atau tidak, who cares....?

Anda harus jujur pada diri sendiri bro  :), dibaca dulu baru ngomong apakah yang ada di Wikipedia itu benar atau salah, kalo benar ya harus diakui benar-lah kalo salah anda musti mampu menunjukan dimana letak kesalahannya, nah itu baru gentlemen.........

 _/\_

saya tidak akan menghakimi apakah wikipedia benar atau salah, jika ini anda anggap tidak gentlemen, again, who cares ...
saya sendiri selalu mengartikan SATI sebagai PERHATIAN, bukan KESADARAN, saya memahami KESADARAN dalam arti 6 kesadaran yg telah saya jelaskan sebelumnya. dan ini juga adalah yg saya pelajari dari sutta2, bukan karangan saya sendiri. dan jika anda juga mau jujur, anda akan mengakui bahwa tidak ada kesadaran lain selain yg 6 itu.

Bro Indra yang baik,

Mohon maaf tapi anda keliru mengartikan khanda/skandha (Skt) silahkan dicermati :

   
Khandha

Defined by Ajahn Punnadhammo

The word khandha is the Pali equivalent of the Sanskrit skandha, and their meanings are identical. Like many Pali (and Sanskrit) words, khandha has both a simple and a technical meaning, and both usages are found in the texts. The simple, or root, meaning of khandha as given in the Pali-English Dictionary is "mass, bulk, (gross) substance." This usage is used in the canon to refer to the bulk of an elephant, for instance. The word is also used specifically for a man's shoulders or back, and also for the trunk of a tree.

Used in a more technical sense, khandha refers to various aggregated collections. There is the phrase dukkhakhandha, "this whole mass of suffering," referring to samsaric existence. The principal technical usage of khandha, however, is in reference to the five khandhas as constituents of psychophysical existence. Sentient beings such as humans, animals, and devas are said to be composed of five khandhas—one physical and four mental. This is a formula often repeated in the suttas and may be considered as the most basic Buddhist analysis of what constitutes a conscious being.

The five khandhas are body (rupakkhandha), feeling (vedanakkhandha), perception (sayyakkhandha), mental formations (sankharakkhandha), and consciousness (viyyaakkhandha). Each of the five can itself be analyzed into finer constituents. Thus the body is composed of the four great elements: earth, air, fire, and water (these terms are to be taken as analogs for physical qualities rather than as literally referring to those substances). Feeling is pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Perception has manifold constituents, depending on the sense door a given perception is associated with, as well as the habitual or learned aspects that color it. Mental formations refer to all those processes or qualities that arise concomitant with consciousness, such as cognitive thought, emotion, volition, and so forth. (The Abhidhamma gives a list of fifty sankhara.) Consciousness can be classified in various ways, but in the suttas it is most often divided into six parts according to the sense door through which the object is cognized (the five physical senses plus the mind-sense, the object of which is thought).

The most important use of the five khandhas as a teaching device is to illustrate the doctrine of anatta (not-self). The idea is that when one looks within, only the five khandhas are seen, and no self-essence is found among them. In the Samanupassana Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya collection of suttas, the Buddha enumerates twenty ways in which beings imagine a self by misapprehending the khandhas: "He assumes body to be the self, or the self as possessing body, or the body in the self, or the self in the body," and so on, for each of the other khandhas.

Elsewhere, the Buddha gives evocative similes to illustrate the ephemeral nature of the five khandhas: the body is like a lump of sea-foam, feelings like bubbles, perception like a mirage, mental formations like a plantain stem (i.e., hollow), and consciousness like a conjuring trick.

Another crucial use of the khandha concept occurs in the formula for the First Noble Truth, which begins with "Birth is suffering, death is suffering" and ends with "in short, these five aggregates of clinging (upadanakkhandha) are suffering." This establishes the universality of dukkha, since no samsaric experience is outside the five khandhas.

The standard English translation of khandha, "aggregate," is a fairly literal choice, but as so often with English translations of Pali technical terms, it does include some misleading connotations. An aggregate implies a collection of smaller or simpler units. This works very well for body and mental formations, but as Nyanatiloka Mahathera notes in his Buddhist Dictionary: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, the other khandhas (feeling, perception and consciousness), although having manifold types, are only experienced in each moment as a unitary phenomenon. Thus, for feeling, at any given mind-moment one can experience only pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral feeling, and never two or three together.

The five khandhas schema is ubiquitous in the Sutta Pitaka but is not found as such in the Abhidhamma, where the body-mind is first analyzed into four broad categories: rupa (body), citta (mind or consciousness), cetasika (mental concomitants, which include the remaining three mental khandhas), and nibbana (the unconditioned). Thai forest masters, following Ajahn Mun, sometimes use the term citta (or jit in Thai, literally "heart") to refer to something that is separate from—and needing to be freed from—the five khandhas. This usage is difficult to reconcile with the orthodox interpretation of the term found in the Abhidhamma. Perhaps, if one allows for poetic license, the term citta as used by the forest masters could refer to the unconditioned element, nibbana—that which is indeed beyond the khandhas.


Ajahn Punnadhammo is abbot of the Arrow River Forest Hermitage in northern Ontario.

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2005/summer/dharma_dictionary.html


 _/\_

Offline Indra

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 14.819
  • Reputasi: 451
  • Gender: Male
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #80 on: 25 September 2010, 02:38:41 PM »
Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Buah pikir yang timbul tenggelam dan dapat diamati dalam meditasi ini bukanlah diri anda yang sesungguhnya.

untuk mempersingkat diskusi, saya akan langsung to the point saja.

sampai pada titik ini Bro Triyana menyatakan (seperti yang di-bold di atas) bahwa ada diri sejati (diri yang sesungguhnya) yg mana statement ini jelas berlawanan secara frontal dengan doktrin Anatta. mohon Bro Triyana sudi menjelaskan dengan jelas dan dengan bahasa yg mudah dipahami.

_/\_



Baik mari kita persingkat :

Menurut pendapat saya yang dimaksud oleh Sang Buddha dengan anatta/anatman(sanskrit) adalah diri kecil anda yang terbentuk karena faktor avidya (kebodohan fundamental) apabila anda mampu menyingkirkan diri kecil anda maka anda akan sampai ke Diri Buddha anda yang adalah anda yang sesungguhnya.

 _/\_

Pernahkah Bro Triyana membaca Anattalakkhana Sutta? bagian manakah dari sutta itu yg mengatakan tentang "diri kecil" ini? Dan dalam banyak Sutta sang Buddha telah mengupas makhluk selapis demi selapis dan tidak pernah ada ditemukan diri besar ataupun kecil. mohon Bro Triyana memberikan referensi atas gagasan ini.

Terima kasih atas reply dari teman-teman di DC Forum ini  :)

Sekarang saya mau jawab pertanyaan bro Indra dulu  :)


Anatta-lakkhana Sutta  ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html )

Menurut pendapat saya Anattalakkhana Sutta adalah benar  :) karena ia menguraikan hal-hal yang memang adalah subyek dari perubahan dan dimana ada perubahan maka ia masih tergolong pada diri kecil dan belum sampai pada Diri Buddha, Buddha telah mengajarkan dengan benar bahwa dengan mengamati faktor-faktor tersebut saja dengan kesadaran terlatih (mindfullness) tanpa anda terikat dengannya maka anda sedikit demi sedikit akan sampai pada Kearahatan dan bahkan Kebuddhaan apabila anda mengikuti Jalan Bodhisattva.
Didalam Mahayana ajaran Yogacara dijelaskan dengan mendetil lagi apa yang terjadi setelah anda menguasai khanda-khanda tersebut dengan baik, masih ada lagi kesadaran-kesadaran lainnya, dan selanjutnya sampai Amala Vijnana (Kesadaran kesembilan) yang merupakan tujuan tertinggi yaitu Kebuddhaan yang merupakan Diri Sejati anda.

 _/\_



menurut Bro Triyana, apakah ajaran Theravada tidak lengkap? dan Dhamma belum sempurna dibabarkan? mengingat dalam Theravada hanya diajarkan 6 jenis kesadaran, dan tidak diajarkan mengenai diri BESAR atau kecil.

bisakah mencantumkan di sini, referensi sehubungan dengan kesadaran yg ada banyak ini dan diri besar kecil ini?

Sebelum saya menjawab pertanyaan bro Indra, ijinkanlah saya untuk sedikit bertanya, didalam Theravada setelah seseorang itu sampai pada tataran Kearahatan apakah ia masih memiliki kesadaran atau tidak?

 _/\_

menurut yg saya pelajari kesadaran adalah bergantung pada landasan2nya, jika seorang arahat masih hidup, berarti landasan2 kesadarannya masih ada, jadi tentu saja masih ada kesadaran. lain halnya jika seorang arahat telah parinibbana

Ketika seorang berlatih Vipasanna dan mengamati ke-6 kesadaran bukankah tidak selamanya selalu buah-buah pikir itu ada, kalo kita sudah cukup lama berlatih maka ada suatu kondisi dimana antara satu buah pikir dan buah pikir lain ada suatu jeda nah selama jeda waktu itu bukankah kita juga masih sadar dan tahu bahwa tidak muncul buah pikir  ^-^

 _/\_

menurut literatur yg saya baca, yg anda maksudkan itu adalah SATI, bukan KESADARAN, yg dalam pengelompokan Abhidhamma termasuk salah satu dari 52 jenis CETASIKA

Well terserah anda menyebutnya apa Sati atau Kesadaran atau definisi apapun, Dalam Vipasanna/Vipasyana (Skt) kita berlatih untuk mengamati dengan kesadaran pada ke-6 khanda tetapi terutama pada buah-buah pikir, nah back to topic mohon dijawab dulu pertanyaan saya  :)

 _/\_

pertanyaan yg manakah yg belum saya jawab?

Yg ini : Ketika seorang berlatih Vipasanna dan mengamati ke-6 kesadaran bukankah tidak selamanya selalu buah-buah pikir itu ada, kalo kita sudah cukup lama berlatih maka ada suatu kondisi dimana antara satu buah pikir dan buah pikir lain ada suatu jeda nah selama jeda waktu itu bukankah kita juga masih sadar dan tahu bahwa tidak muncul buah pikir  ^-^

 _/\_

silahkan anda baca pelan2 quote-quote di atas, pertanyaan itu sudah anda tanyakan dan sudah saya jawab, jika anda mengulangi lagi saya akan menjawab dengan cara yg sama, tapi saya merasa tidak perlu mengetik ulang, karena jawaban saya masih terbaca dalam quote di atas. pelan2 saja bacanya Bro, tidak perlu terburu2

Saya ndak terburu-buru  ^-^ pertanyaan saya sederhana saja jika anda berlatih Vipasanna pada 6 kelompok kesadaran terutama pada bagian pikiran pasti suatu saat ada jeda waktu dimana buah-buah pikir itu tidak muncul, nah pada saat jeda tersebut bukankah anda masih sadar?  :)

 _/\_

Baiklah saya akan bersabar pada anda. pada saat itu kesadaran-mata saya tidak aktif karena mata saya tertutup. kesadaran-telinga mungkin agak melemah tapi tidak sepenuhnya tidak aktif, masih bergantung pada landasan eksternal, jika suara tidak ada maka kesadaran-telinga juga tidak ada, ini juga berlaku pada kesadaran-hidung, kesadaran-lidah, kesadaran-badan dan kesadaran-pikiran. pada saat itu SATI (yg merupakan salah satu dari kelompok CETASIKA) lah yg mengetahui. dan menurut pemahaman saya SATI bukan kesadaran dan bukan DIRI.

kalau anda masih mengulangi pertanyaan yg sama, saya tidak mampu menjelaskan lebih jauh lagi, mungkin member lain bisa membantu

Bukankah seharusnya saya yang bersabar terhadap anda  :), silahkan dibaca : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness_(Buddhism)   :)

 _/\_



begitu banyak rujukan mengenai SATI dalam sutta tapi anda malah memilih merujuk pada wikipedia, maaf saya lebih suka menggunakan referensi yg lebih reliable seperti yg terdapat dalam PANCA BALA, dalam SATTABOJJHANGA, PANCAINDRIYA, dll.

apaakh anda mau bersabar pada saya atau tidak, who cares....?

Anda harus jujur pada diri sendiri bro  :), dibaca dulu baru ngomong apakah yang ada di Wikipedia itu benar atau salah, kalo benar ya harus diakui benar-lah kalo salah anda musti mampu menunjukan dimana letak kesalahannya, nah itu baru gentlemen.........

 _/\_

saya tidak akan menghakimi apakah wikipedia benar atau salah, jika ini anda anggap tidak gentlemen, again, who cares ...
saya sendiri selalu mengartikan SATI sebagai PERHATIAN, bukan KESADARAN, saya memahami KESADARAN dalam arti 6 kesadaran yg telah saya jelaskan sebelumnya. dan ini juga adalah yg saya pelajari dari sutta2, bukan karangan saya sendiri. dan jika anda juga mau jujur, anda akan mengakui bahwa tidak ada kesadaran lain selain yg 6 itu.

Bro Indra yang baik,

Mohon maaf tapi anda keliru mengartikan khanda/skandha (Skt) silahkan dicermati :

   
Khandha

Defined by Ajahn Punnadhammo

The word khandha is the Pali equivalent of the Sanskrit skandha, and their meanings are identical. Like many Pali (and Sanskrit) words, khandha has both a simple and a technical meaning, and both usages are found in the texts. The simple, or root, meaning of khandha as given in the Pali-English Dictionary is "mass, bulk, (gross) substance." This usage is used in the canon to refer to the bulk of an elephant, for instance. The word is also used specifically for a man's shoulders or back, and also for the trunk of a tree.

Used in a more technical sense, khandha refers to various aggregated collections. There is the phrase dukkhakhandha, "this whole mass of suffering," referring to samsaric existence. The principal technical usage of khandha, however, is in reference to the five khandhas as constituents of psychophysical existence. Sentient beings such as humans, animals, and devas are said to be composed of five khandhas—one physical and four mental. This is a formula often repeated in the suttas and may be considered as the most basic Buddhist analysis of what constitutes a conscious being.

The five khandhas are body (rupakkhandha), feeling (vedanakkhandha), perception (sayyakkhandha), mental formations (sankharakkhandha), and consciousness (viyyaakkhandha). Each of the five can itself be analyzed into finer constituents. Thus the body is composed of the four great elements: earth, air, fire, and water (these terms are to be taken as analogs for physical qualities rather than as literally referring to those substances). Feeling is pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Perception has manifold constituents, depending on the sense door a given perception is associated with, as well as the habitual or learned aspects that color it. Mental formations refer to all those processes or qualities that arise concomitant with consciousness, such as cognitive thought, emotion, volition, and so forth. (The Abhidhamma gives a list of fifty sankhara.) Consciousness can be classified in various ways, but in the suttas it is most often divided into six parts according to the sense door through which the object is cognized (the five physical senses plus the mind-sense, the object of which is thought).

The most important use of the five khandhas as a teaching device is to illustrate the doctrine of anatta (not-self). The idea is that when one looks within, only the five khandhas are seen, and no self-essence is found among them. In the Samanupassana Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya collection of suttas, the Buddha enumerates twenty ways in which beings imagine a self by misapprehending the khandhas: "He assumes body to be the self, or the self as possessing body, or the body in the self, or the self in the body," and so on, for each of the other khandhas.

Elsewhere, the Buddha gives evocative similes to illustrate the ephemeral nature of the five khandhas: the body is like a lump of sea-foam, feelings like bubbles, perception like a mirage, mental formations like a plantain stem (i.e., hollow), and consciousness like a conjuring trick.

Another crucial use of the khandha concept occurs in the formula for the First Noble Truth, which begins with "Birth is suffering, death is suffering" and ends with "in short, these five aggregates of clinging (upadanakkhandha) are suffering." This establishes the universality of dukkha, since no samsaric experience is outside the five khandhas.

The standard English translation of khandha, "aggregate," is a fairly literal choice, but as so often with English translations of Pali technical terms, it does include some misleading connotations. An aggregate implies a collection of smaller or simpler units. This works very well for body and mental formations, but as Nyanatiloka Mahathera notes in his Buddhist Dictionary: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, the other khandhas (feeling, perception and consciousness), although having manifold types, are only experienced in each moment as a unitary phenomenon. Thus, for feeling, at any given mind-moment one can experience only pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral feeling, and never two or three together.

The five khandhas schema is ubiquitous in the Sutta Pitaka but is not found as such in the Abhidhamma, where the body-mind is first analyzed into four broad categories: rupa (body), citta (mind or consciousness), cetasika (mental concomitants, which include the remaining three mental khandhas), and nibbana (the unconditioned). Thai forest masters, following Ajahn Mun, sometimes use the term citta (or jit in Thai, literally "heart") to refer to something that is separate from—and needing to be freed from—the five khandhas. This usage is difficult to reconcile with the orthodox interpretation of the term found in the Abhidhamma. Perhaps, if one allows for poetic license, the term citta as used by the forest masters could refer to the unconditioned element, nibbana—that which is indeed beyond the khandhas.


Ajahn Punnadhammo is abbot of the Arrow River Forest Hermitage in northern Ontario.

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2005/summer/dharma_dictionary.html


 _/\_


maaf juga Bro, mengapa anda melebar ke khandha? kesadaran adalah salah satu dari khandha, tapi kita sedang mendiskusikan khandha kesadaran dan hubungannya dengan pengertian DIRI dari anda. dalam hal ini apakah dimanakah letak kesalahan saya? mohon anda lebih to the point, sejauh ini saya belum melihat bagian mana dari statement saya yg bertentangan dengan kutipan anda di atas, walaupn saya tidak pernah membahas mengenai khandha dengan anda. apakah anda yakin sedang menjawab pertanyaan saya?

ada banyak sutta yg membahas mengenai khandha ini, bahkan Samyutta Nikaya memberikan satu vagga penuh untuk hal ini yaitu salayatana vagga, jadi mohon anda menggunakan referensi yg paling dapat diandalkan daripada menggunakan opini pihak ke tiga.
« Last Edit: 25 September 2010, 02:40:25 PM by Indra »

Offline Indra

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 14.819
  • Reputasi: 451
  • Gender: Male
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #81 on: 25 September 2010, 02:41:07 PM »
sudikah anda menanggapi ini?
[at]  Triyana,
saya sudah melakukan kewajiban saya sebagai peserta diskusi yg baik dengan menjawab pertanyaan2 anda, terlepas apakah anda setuju atau tidak setuju dengan jawaban saya. saya pikir cukup adil jika anda juga menjawab pertanyaan2 saya.


Offline Triyana2009

  • Sahabat Baik
  • ****
  • Posts: 756
  • Reputasi: 4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #82 on: 25 September 2010, 06:52:56 PM »
Namo Buddhaya,

Bro Indra yang baik,

Tidak usah terburu-buru dalam diskusi ini  :)

Mari kita luruskan terlebih dahulu pandangan anda, anda menggangap bahwa Sati bukanlah Kesadaran lalu menurut anda apakah itu Sati dan referensi apa yang anda gunakan ?  _/\_

Ini Sati menurut saya :

Sati [sati]:
Mindfulness, self-collectedness, powers of reference and retention. In some contexts, the word sati when used alone covers alertness (sampajañña) as well.

Sumber : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html

 _/\_

Offline Indra

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 14.819
  • Reputasi: 451
  • Gender: Male
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #83 on: 25 September 2010, 07:04:55 PM »
Namo Buddhaya,

Bro Indra yang baik,

Tidak usah terburu-buru dalam diskusi ini  :)

Mari kita luruskan terlebih dahulu pandangan anda, anda menggangap bahwa Sati bukanlah Kesadaran lalu menurut anda apakah itu Sati dan referensi apa yang anda gunakan ?  _/\_

Ini Sati menurut saya :

Sati [sati]:
Mindfulness, self-collectedness, powers of reference and retention. In some contexts, the word sati when used alone covers alertness (sampajañña) as well.

Sumber : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html

 _/\_

untuk ke 3 kalinya saya tetap memberikan jawaban yg sama, SATI adalah salah satu dari 52 jenis CETASIKA, sesuai namanya maka ini adalah bagian dari CITTA.

sepertinya anda sedang mengeluarkan jurus geliat belut, apapun jawaban saya seharusnya tidak mempengaruhi jawaban anda atas pertanyaan saya, jadi kenapa begitu sulit bagi anda untuk menjawab saya? sekalipun tidak terburu2, saya akan melanjutkan diskusi dengan anda di thread ini hanya jika anda sudah menjawab pertanyaan saya.

take your time, no need to hurry

Offline adi lim

  • Sebelumnya: adiharto
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 4.993
  • Reputasi: 108
  • Gender: Male
  • Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #84 on: 25 September 2010, 07:35:29 PM »
Namo Buddhaya,

Bro Indra yang baik,

Tidak usah terburu-buru dalam diskusi ini  :)

Mari kita luruskan terlebih dahulu pandangan anda, anda menggangap bahwa Sati bukanlah Kesadaran lalu menurut anda apakah itu Sati dan referensi apa yang anda gunakan ?  _/\_

Ini Sati menurut saya :

Sati [sati]:
Mindfulness, self-collectedness, powers of reference and retention. In some contexts, the word sati when used alone covers alertness (sampajañña) as well.

Sumber : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html

 _/\_

untuk ke 3 kalinya saya tetap memberikan jawaban yg sama, SATI adalah salah satu dari 52 jenis CETASIKA, sesuai namanya maka ini adalah bagian dari CITTA.

sepertinya anda sedang mengeluarkan jurus geliat belut, apapun jawaban saya seharusnya tidak mempengaruhi jawaban anda atas pertanyaan saya, jadi kenapa begitu sulit bagi anda untuk menjawab saya? sekalipun tidak terburu2, saya akan melanjutkan diskusi dengan anda di thread ini hanya jika anda sudah menjawab pertanyaan saya.

take your time, no need to hurry

maaf ! :outoftopic:
jawabnya susah ?
kebanyakan aliran, jadi bingung yang mana mau di paparkan ???
 ^-^
 :backtotopic:
Seringlah PancaKhanda direnungkan sebagai Ini Bukan MILIKKU, Ini Bukan AKU, Ini Bukan DIRIKU, bermanfaat mengurangi keSERAKAHan, mengurangi keSOMBONGan, Semoga dapat menjauhi Pandangan SALAH.

Offline Triyana2009

  • Sahabat Baik
  • ****
  • Posts: 756
  • Reputasi: 4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #85 on: 25 September 2010, 07:52:24 PM »
Namo Buddhaya,

Semua sumber yang saya gunakan disini cukup kompeten :

1. http://Http://www.accesstoinsight.org = Sumber ajaran Theravada terlengkap dan dibimbing oleh Bhante-bhante jujur dan terpelajar.

2. Ajahn Punnadhammo = Ajahn Punnadhammo is abbot (Kepala Vihara) of the Arrow River Forest Hermitage in northern Ontario.

Baik langsung saja:

menurut Bro Triyana, apakah ajaran Theravada tidak lengkap? dan Dhamma belum sempurna dibabarkan? mengingat dalam Theravada hanya diajarkan 6 jenis kesadaran, dan tidak diajarkan mengenai diri BESAR atau kecil.

bisakah mencantumkan di sini, referensi sehubungan dengan kesadaran yg ada banyak ini dan diri besar kecil ini?

Saya tidak berani mengatakan ajaran Theravada tidak lengkap namun menurut Bhante The venerable Prof Walpola Sri Rahula Maha Thera (1907-1997) seperti ini :

Some people think that Voidness or Sunyata discussed by Nagarjuna is purely a Mahayana teaching. It is based on the idea of Anatta or non-self, on the Paticcasamuppada or the Dependent Origination, found in the original Theravada Pali texts. Once Ananda asked the Buddha, "People say the word Sunya. What is Sunya?" The Buddha replied, "Ananda, there is no self, nor anything pertaining to self in this world. Therefore, the world is empty." This idea was taken by Nagarjuna when he wrote his remarkable book, "Madhyamika Karika". Besides the idea of Sunyata is the concept of the store-consciousness in Mahayana Buddhism which has its seed in the Theravada texts. The Mahayanists have developed it into a deep psychology and philosophy.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html


bisakah mencantumkan di sini, referensi sehubungan dengan kesadaran yg ada banyak ini dan diri besar kecil ini?

The Yogācāra textual corpus

Sutras

The Unravelling the Mystery of Thought Sutra (Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, 2nd century CE) was the seminal Yogācāra sutra and continued to be a primary referent for the tradition. Also containing Yogācāra elements were the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra (1st century CE) and Daśabhūmika Sūtra (pre-3rd century CE).[12] The later Descent into Laṅkā Sūtra (Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, 4th century CE) also assumed considerable importance.[13] Other prominent Yogācāra sutras include the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda Sūtra and the Ghanavyūha Sūtra.[14]

Five treatises of Maitreya

Among the most important texts to the Yogācāra tradition to be the Five Treatises of Maitreya. These texts are said to have been related to Asaṅga by the Buddha Maitreya. They are as follows:
Ornament for Clear Realization (Abhisamaya-alaṅkāra, Tib. mngon-par rtogs-pa'i rgyan)
Ornament for the Mahāyāna Sutras (Mahāyāna-sūtra-alaṅkāra, Tib. theg-pa chen-po'i mdo-sde'i rgyan)
Sublime Continuum of the Mahāyāna (Ratna-gotra-vibhāga, Tib. theg-pa chen-po rgyud bla-ma'i bstan)
Distinguishing Phenomena and Pure Being (Dharma-dharmatā-vibhāga, Tib. chos-dang chos-nyid rnam-par 'byed-pa)
Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes (Madhyānta-vibhāga, Tib. dbus-dang mtha' rnam-par 'byed-pa)

A commentary on the Ornament for Clear Realization called "Clarifying the Meaning" by Haribhadra is also often used, as is one by Vimuktisena.

Most of these texts were also incorporated into the Chinese tradition, which was established several centuries earlier than the Tibetan. However, the Ornament for Clear Realization is not mentioned by Chinese translators up to the 7th century, including Xuanzang, who was an expert in this field. This suggests it may possibly have emerged from a later period than is generally ascribed to it.

Other texts

Vasubandhu wrote three foundational texts of the Yogācāra: the Treatise on the Three Natures (Sanskrit: Trisvabhāva-nirdeśa, Tib. Rang-bzhin gsum nges-par bstan), the Treatise in Twenty Stanzas (Skt: Viṃśaṭikā-kārikā) and the Treatise in Thirty Stanzas (S: Triṃśikaikā-kārikā). He also wrote an important commentary on the Madhyantavibhaṅga. According to Buddhist scholar Jay Garfield:

While the Trisvabhāva-nirdeśa is arguably the most philosophically detailed and comprehensive of the three short works on this topic composed by Vasubandu, as well as the clearest, it is almost never read or taught in contemporary traditional cultures or centers of learning. The reason may be simply that this is the only one of Vasubandhu’s root texts for which no autocommmentary exists. For this reason, none of Vasubandhu’s students composed commentaries on the text and hence there is no recognized lineage of transmission for the text. So nobody within the Tibetan tradition (the only extant Mahāyāna scholarly tradition) could consider him or herself authorized to teach the text. It is therefore simply not studied, a great pity. It is a beautiful and deep philosophical essay and an unparalleled introduction to the Cittamatra system.

Authorship of critical Yogācāra texts is also ascribed to Asaṅga personally (in contrast to the Five Treatises of Maitreya). Among them are the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha and the Abhidharma-samuccaya. Sometimes also ascribed to him is the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra, a massive encyclopedic work considered the definitive statement of Yogācāra, but most scholars believe it was compiled a century later, in the 5th century.

Other important commentaries on various Yogācāra texts were written by Sthiramati (6th century) and Dharmapāla (7th century), and an influential Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka synthesis was formulated by Śāntarakṣita (8th century).

Yogacara and the Absolute

Another scholar sees a Buddhist Absolute in Consciousness. Writing on the Yogacara school of Buddhism, Dr. A. K. Chatterjee remarks: "The Absolute is a non-dual consciousness. The duality of the subject and object does not pertain to it. It is said to be void (sunya), devoid of duality; in itself it is perfectly real, in fact the only reality ...There is no consciousness of the Absolute; Consciousness is the Absolute."

Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Dr. Kosho Yamamoto, who translated the entire Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra into English, tells of how the Buddha speaks in that scripture of doctrines previously not articulated. Now, in order to correct people’s misunderstanding of the Dharma, the Buddha - according to Yamamoto - tells of how He speaks of the positive qualities of nirvana, which includes the self:

He [i.e. the Buddha] says that he is now ready to speak about the undisclosed teachings. Men abide in upside-down thoughts. So he will now speak of the affirmative attributes of Nirvana, which are none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and the Pure.

here we read in words attributed to the Buddha: "... it is not the case that they [i.e. all phenomena] are devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon ["dharma"] that is true ["satya"], real ["tattva"], eternal ["nitya"], sovereign/autonomous ["aishvarya"] and whose foundation is unchanging ["ashraya-aviparinama"] is termed 'the Self' [atman]." (translated from Dharmakṣema's version of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra)

Zen

The Zen Buddhist master, Sekkei Harada, likewise speaks of a true Self in his explications of Zen Buddhism. This true Self is found when one "forgets the ego-self".[17] Harada states that the doctrine of "no-self" really means awakening to a self that is without any limits and thus invisible: "No-self means to awaken to a Self that is so vast and limitless that it cannot be seen."[18] Harada concludes his reflections on Zen Buddhism by speaking of the need for an almost passionate encounter with the "person" of the essential True Self:

… in our lifetime there is only one person we must encounter, one person we must meet as though we were passionately in love. That person is the essential Self, the true Self. As long as you don’t meet this Self, it will be impossible to find true satisfaction in your heart …

Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra

Analogously, Professor Michael Zimmermann, a specialist on the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, writes: "the existence of an eternal, imperishable self, that is, buddhahood, is definitely the basic point of the Tathagatagarbha Sutra".

the Mahabheriharaka Sutra

the Mahabheriharaka Sutra insists: "... at the time one becomes a Tathagata, a Buddha, he is in nirvana, and is referred to as 'permanent', 'steadfast', 'calm', 'eternal', and 'Self' [atman]."

Srimala Sutra

Similarly, the Śrīmālā Sūtra declares unequivocally: "When sentient beings have faith in the Tathagata [Buddha] and those sentient beings conceive [him] with permanence, pleasure, self, and purity, they do not go astray. Those sentient beings have the right view. Why so? Because the Dharmakaya [ultimate nature] of the Tathagata has the perfection of permanence, the perfection of pleasure, the perfection of self, the perfection of purity. Whatever sentient beings see the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata that way, see correctly."


 _/\_

Offline Indra

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 14.819
  • Reputasi: 451
  • Gender: Male
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #86 on: 25 September 2010, 08:01:36 PM »
Saya tidak berani mengatakan ajaran Theravada tidak lengkap namun menurut Bhante The venerable Prof Walpola Sri Rahula Maha Thera (1907-1997) seperti ini :

Some people think that Voidness or Sunyata discussed by Nagarjuna is purely a Mahayana teaching. It is based on the idea of Anatta or non-self, on the Paticcasamuppada or the Dependent Origination, found in the original Theravada Pali texts. Once Ananda asked the Buddha, "People say the word Sunya. What is Sunya?" The Buddha replied, "Ananda, there is no self, nor anything pertaining to self in this world. Therefore, the world is empty." This idea was taken by Nagarjuna when he wrote his remarkable book, "Madhyamika Karika". Besides the idea of Sunyata is the concept of the store-consciousness in Mahayana Buddhism which has its seed in the Theravada texts. The Mahayanists have developed it into a deep psychology and philosophy.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html


Tanpa mengurangi rasa hormat pada penulis, namun saya tetap lebih menyukai sumber valid sutta/sutra bukan opini pihak ke3, walupun berasal dari Maha Super Thera. dan kutipan di atas juga belum menjawab pertanyaan saya.

Quote
bisakah mencantumkan di sini, referensi sehubungan dengan kesadaran yg ada banyak ini dan diri besar kecil ini?

The Yogācāra textual corpus

Sutras

The Unravelling the Mystery of Thought Sutra (Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, 2nd century CE) was the seminal Yogācāra sutra and continued to be a primary referent for the tradition. Also containing Yogācāra elements were the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra (1st century CE) and Daśabhūmika Sūtra (pre-3rd century CE).[12] The later Descent into Laṅkā Sūtra (Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, 4th century CE) also assumed considerable importance.[13] Other prominent Yogācāra sutras include the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda Sūtra and the Ghanavyūha Sūtra.[14]

Five treatises of Maitreya

Among the most important texts to the Yogācāra tradition to be the Five Treatises of Maitreya. These texts are said to have been related to Asaṅga by the Buddha Maitreya. They are as follows:
Ornament for Clear Realization (Abhisamaya-alaṅkāra, Tib. mngon-par rtogs-pa'i rgyan)
Ornament for the Mahāyāna Sutras (Mahāyāna-sūtra-alaṅkāra, Tib. theg-pa chen-po'i mdo-sde'i rgyan)
Sublime Continuum of the Mahāyāna (Ratna-gotra-vibhāga, Tib. theg-pa chen-po rgyud bla-ma'i bstan)
Distinguishing Phenomena and Pure Being (Dharma-dharmatā-vibhāga, Tib. chos-dang chos-nyid rnam-par 'byed-pa)
Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes (Madhyānta-vibhāga, Tib. dbus-dang mtha' rnam-par 'byed-pa)

A commentary on the Ornament for Clear Realization called "Clarifying the Meaning" by Haribhadra is also often used, as is one by Vimuktisena.

Most of these texts were also incorporated into the Chinese tradition, which was established several centuries earlier than the Tibetan. However, the Ornament for Clear Realization is not mentioned by Chinese translators up to the 7th century, including Xuanzang, who was an expert in this field. This suggests it may possibly have emerged from a later period than is generally ascribed to it.

Other texts

Vasubandhu wrote three foundational texts of the Yogācāra: the Treatise on the Three Natures (Sanskrit: Trisvabhāva-nirdeśa, Tib. Rang-bzhin gsum nges-par bstan), the Treatise in Twenty Stanzas (Skt: Viṃśaṭikā-kārikā) and the Treatise in Thirty Stanzas (S: Triṃśikaikā-kārikā). He also wrote an important commentary on the Madhyantavibhaṅga. According to Buddhist scholar Jay Garfield:

While the Trisvabhāva-nirdeśa is arguably the most philosophically detailed and comprehensive of the three short works on this topic composed by Vasubandu, as well as the clearest, it is almost never read or taught in contemporary traditional cultures or centers of learning. The reason may be simply that this is the only one of Vasubandhu’s root texts for which no autocommmentary exists. For this reason, none of Vasubandhu’s students composed commentaries on the text and hence there is no recognized lineage of transmission for the text. So nobody within the Tibetan tradition (the only extant Mahāyāna scholarly tradition) could consider him or herself authorized to teach the text. It is therefore simply not studied, a great pity. It is a beautiful and deep philosophical essay and an unparalleled introduction to the Cittamatra system.

Authorship of critical Yogācāra texts is also ascribed to Asaṅga personally (in contrast to the Five Treatises of Maitreya). Among them are the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha and the Abhidharma-samuccaya. Sometimes also ascribed to him is the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra, a massive encyclopedic work considered the definitive statement of Yogācāra, but most scholars believe it was compiled a century later, in the 5th century.

Other important commentaries on various Yogācāra texts were written by Sthiramati (6th century) and Dharmapāla (7th century), and an influential Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka synthesis was formulated by Śāntarakṣita (8th century).

Yogacara and the Absolute

Another scholar sees a Buddhist Absolute in Consciousness. Writing on the Yogacara school of Buddhism, Dr. A. K. Chatterjee remarks: "The Absolute is a non-dual consciousness. The duality of the subject and object does not pertain to it. It is said to be void (sunya), devoid of duality; in itself it is perfectly real, in fact the only reality ...There is no consciousness of the Absolute; Consciousness is the Absolute."

Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Dr. Kosho Yamamoto, who translated the entire Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra into English, tells of how the Buddha speaks in that scripture of doctrines previously not articulated. Now, in order to correct people’s misunderstanding of the Dharma, the Buddha - according to Yamamoto - tells of how He speaks of the positive qualities of nirvana, which includes the self:

He [i.e. the Buddha] says that he is now ready to speak about the undisclosed teachings. Men abide in upside-down thoughts. So he will now speak of the affirmative attributes of Nirvana, which are none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and the Pure.

here we read in words attributed to the Buddha: "... it is not the case that they [i.e. all phenomena] are devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon ["dharma"] that is true ["satya"], real ["tattva"], eternal ["nitya"], sovereign/autonomous ["aishvarya"] and whose foundation is unchanging ["ashraya-aviparinama"] is termed 'the Self' [atman]." (translated from Dharmakṣema's version of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra)

Zen

The Zen Buddhist master, Sekkei Harada, likewise speaks of a true Self in his explications of Zen Buddhism. This true Self is found when one "forgets the ego-self".[17] Harada states that the doctrine of "no-self" really means awakening to a self that is without any limits and thus invisible: "No-self means to awaken to a Self that is so vast and limitless that it cannot be seen."[18] Harada concludes his reflections on Zen Buddhism by speaking of the need for an almost passionate encounter with the "person" of the essential True Self:

… in our lifetime there is only one person we must encounter, one person we must meet as though we were passionately in love. That person is the essential Self, the true Self. As long as you don’t meet this Self, it will be impossible to find true satisfaction in your heart …

Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra

Analogously, Professor Michael Zimmermann, a specialist on the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, writes: "the existence of an eternal, imperishable self, that is, buddhahood, is definitely the basic point of the Tathagatagarbha Sutra".

the Mahabheriharaka Sutra

the Mahabheriharaka Sutra insists: "... at the time one becomes a Tathagata, a Buddha, he is in nirvana, and is referred to as 'permanent', 'steadfast', 'calm', 'eternal', and 'Self' [atman]."

Srimala Sutra

Similarly, the Śrīmālā Sūtra declares unequivocally: "When sentient beings have faith in the Tathagata [Buddha] and those sentient beings conceive [him] with permanence, pleasure, self, and purity, they do not go astray. Those sentient beings have the right view. Why so? Because the Dharmakaya [ultimate nature] of the Tathagata has the perfection of permanence, the perfection of pleasure, the perfection of self, the perfection of purity. Whatever sentient beings see the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata that way, see correctly."


 _/\_


dengan asumsi bahwa referensi anda adalah benar, maka bahwa kesamaan yg ada adalah antara AGAMA MAHAYANA (bukan Agama Buddha secara umum) dengan HINDU.

Offline Triyana2009

  • Sahabat Baik
  • ****
  • Posts: 756
  • Reputasi: 4
  • Gender: Male
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #87 on: 25 September 2010, 08:14:27 PM »
Saya tidak berani mengatakan ajaran Theravada tidak lengkap namun menurut Bhante The venerable Prof Walpola Sri Rahula Maha Thera (1907-1997) seperti ini :

Some people think that Voidness or Sunyata discussed by Nagarjuna is purely a Mahayana teaching. It is based on the idea of Anatta or non-self, on the Paticcasamuppada or the Dependent Origination, found in the original Theravada Pali texts. Once Ananda asked the Buddha, "People say the word Sunya. What is Sunya?" The Buddha replied, "Ananda, there is no self, nor anything pertaining to self in this world. Therefore, the world is empty." This idea was taken by Nagarjuna when he wrote his remarkable book, "Madhyamika Karika". Besides the idea of Sunyata is the concept of the store-consciousness in Mahayana Buddhism which has its seed in the Theravada texts. The Mahayanists have developed it into a deep psychology and philosophy.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html


Tanpa mengurangi rasa hormat pada penulis, namun saya tetap lebih menyukai sumber valid sutta/sutra bukan opini pihak ke3, walupun berasal dari Maha Super Thera. dan kutipan di atas juga belum menjawab pertanyaan saya.

Quote
bisakah mencantumkan di sini, referensi sehubungan dengan kesadaran yg ada banyak ini dan diri besar kecil ini?

The Yogācāra textual corpus

Sutras

The Unravelling the Mystery of Thought Sutra (Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, 2nd century CE) was the seminal Yogācāra sutra and continued to be a primary referent for the tradition. Also containing Yogācāra elements were the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra (1st century CE) and Daśabhūmika Sūtra (pre-3rd century CE).[12] The later Descent into Laṅkā Sūtra (Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, 4th century CE) also assumed considerable importance.[13] Other prominent Yogācāra sutras include the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda Sūtra and the Ghanavyūha Sūtra.[14]

Five treatises of Maitreya

Among the most important texts to the Yogācāra tradition to be the Five Treatises of Maitreya. These texts are said to have been related to Asaṅga by the Buddha Maitreya. They are as follows:
Ornament for Clear Realization (Abhisamaya-alaṅkāra, Tib. mngon-par rtogs-pa'i rgyan)
Ornament for the Mahāyāna Sutras (Mahāyāna-sūtra-alaṅkāra, Tib. theg-pa chen-po'i mdo-sde'i rgyan)
Sublime Continuum of the Mahāyāna (Ratna-gotra-vibhāga, Tib. theg-pa chen-po rgyud bla-ma'i bstan)
Distinguishing Phenomena and Pure Being (Dharma-dharmatā-vibhāga, Tib. chos-dang chos-nyid rnam-par 'byed-pa)
Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes (Madhyānta-vibhāga, Tib. dbus-dang mtha' rnam-par 'byed-pa)

A commentary on the Ornament for Clear Realization called "Clarifying the Meaning" by Haribhadra is also often used, as is one by Vimuktisena.

Most of these texts were also incorporated into the Chinese tradition, which was established several centuries earlier than the Tibetan. However, the Ornament for Clear Realization is not mentioned by Chinese translators up to the 7th century, including Xuanzang, who was an expert in this field. This suggests it may possibly have emerged from a later period than is generally ascribed to it.

Other texts

Vasubandhu wrote three foundational texts of the Yogācāra: the Treatise on the Three Natures (Sanskrit: Trisvabhāva-nirdeśa, Tib. Rang-bzhin gsum nges-par bstan), the Treatise in Twenty Stanzas (Skt: Viṃśaṭikā-kārikā) and the Treatise in Thirty Stanzas (S: Triṃśikaikā-kārikā). He also wrote an important commentary on the Madhyantavibhaṅga. According to Buddhist scholar Jay Garfield:

While the Trisvabhāva-nirdeśa is arguably the most philosophically detailed and comprehensive of the three short works on this topic composed by Vasubandu, as well as the clearest, it is almost never read or taught in contemporary traditional cultures or centers of learning. The reason may be simply that this is the only one of Vasubandhu’s root texts for which no autocommmentary exists. For this reason, none of Vasubandhu’s students composed commentaries on the text and hence there is no recognized lineage of transmission for the text. So nobody within the Tibetan tradition (the only extant Mahāyāna scholarly tradition) could consider him or herself authorized to teach the text. It is therefore simply not studied, a great pity. It is a beautiful and deep philosophical essay and an unparalleled introduction to the Cittamatra system.

Authorship of critical Yogācāra texts is also ascribed to Asaṅga personally (in contrast to the Five Treatises of Maitreya). Among them are the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha and the Abhidharma-samuccaya. Sometimes also ascribed to him is the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra, a massive encyclopedic work considered the definitive statement of Yogācāra, but most scholars believe it was compiled a century later, in the 5th century.

Other important commentaries on various Yogācāra texts were written by Sthiramati (6th century) and Dharmapāla (7th century), and an influential Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka synthesis was formulated by Śāntarakṣita (8th century).

Yogacara and the Absolute

Another scholar sees a Buddhist Absolute in Consciousness. Writing on the Yogacara school of Buddhism, Dr. A. K. Chatterjee remarks: "The Absolute is a non-dual consciousness. The duality of the subject and object does not pertain to it. It is said to be void (sunya), devoid of duality; in itself it is perfectly real, in fact the only reality ...There is no consciousness of the Absolute; Consciousness is the Absolute."

Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Dr. Kosho Yamamoto, who translated the entire Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra into English, tells of how the Buddha speaks in that scripture of doctrines previously not articulated. Now, in order to correct people’s misunderstanding of the Dharma, the Buddha - according to Yamamoto - tells of how He speaks of the positive qualities of nirvana, which includes the self:

He [i.e. the Buddha] says that he is now ready to speak about the undisclosed teachings. Men abide in upside-down thoughts. So he will now speak of the affirmative attributes of Nirvana, which are none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and the Pure.

here we read in words attributed to the Buddha: "... it is not the case that they [i.e. all phenomena] are devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon ["dharma"] that is true ["satya"], real ["tattva"], eternal ["nitya"], sovereign/autonomous ["aishvarya"] and whose foundation is unchanging ["ashraya-aviparinama"] is termed 'the Self' [atman]." (translated from Dharmakṣema's version of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra)

Zen

The Zen Buddhist master, Sekkei Harada, likewise speaks of a true Self in his explications of Zen Buddhism. This true Self is found when one "forgets the ego-self".[17] Harada states that the doctrine of "no-self" really means awakening to a self that is without any limits and thus invisible: "No-self means to awaken to a Self that is so vast and limitless that it cannot be seen."[18] Harada concludes his reflections on Zen Buddhism by speaking of the need for an almost passionate encounter with the "person" of the essential True Self:

… in our lifetime there is only one person we must encounter, one person we must meet as though we were passionately in love. That person is the essential Self, the true Self. As long as you don’t meet this Self, it will be impossible to find true satisfaction in your heart …

Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra

Analogously, Professor Michael Zimmermann, a specialist on the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, writes: "the existence of an eternal, imperishable self, that is, buddhahood, is definitely the basic point of the Tathagatagarbha Sutra".

the Mahabheriharaka Sutra

the Mahabheriharaka Sutra insists: "... at the time one becomes a Tathagata, a Buddha, he is in nirvana, and is referred to as 'permanent', 'steadfast', 'calm', 'eternal', and 'Self' [atman]."

Srimala Sutra

Similarly, the Śrīmālā Sūtra declares unequivocally: "When sentient beings have faith in the Tathagata [Buddha] and those sentient beings conceive [him] with permanence, pleasure, self, and purity, they do not go astray. Those sentient beings have the right view. Why so? Because the Dharmakaya [ultimate nature] of the Tathagata has the perfection of permanence, the perfection of pleasure, the perfection of self, the perfection of purity. Whatever sentient beings see the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata that way, see correctly."


 _/\_


dengan asumsi bahwa referensi anda adalah benar, maka bahwa kesamaan yg ada adalah antara AGAMA MAHAYANA (bukan Agama Buddha secara umum) dengan HINDU.

Saya sangat menghormati Ajaran Theravada khususnya Bhante Dr.Walpola Sri Rahula Maha Thera pun dikalangan Theravada beliau dihormati sebagai cendekiawan jujur dan berwibawa, entah dengan anda   :)

 _/\_

Offline Indra

  • Global Moderator
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 14.819
  • Reputasi: 451
  • Gender: Male
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #88 on: 25 September 2010, 08:20:11 PM »
Saya tidak berani mengatakan ajaran Theravada tidak lengkap namun menurut Bhante The venerable Prof Walpola Sri Rahula Maha Thera (1907-1997) seperti ini :

Some people think that Voidness or Sunyata discussed by Nagarjuna is purely a Mahayana teaching. It is based on the idea of Anatta or non-self, on the Paticcasamuppada or the Dependent Origination, found in the original Theravada Pali texts. Once Ananda asked the Buddha, "People say the word Sunya. What is Sunya?" The Buddha replied, "Ananda, there is no self, nor anything pertaining to self in this world. Therefore, the world is empty." This idea was taken by Nagarjuna when he wrote his remarkable book, "Madhyamika Karika". Besides the idea of Sunyata is the concept of the store-consciousness in Mahayana Buddhism which has its seed in the Theravada texts. The Mahayanists have developed it into a deep psychology and philosophy.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html


Tanpa mengurangi rasa hormat pada penulis, namun saya tetap lebih menyukai sumber valid sutta/sutra bukan opini pihak ke3, walupun berasal dari Maha Super Thera. dan kutipan di atas juga belum menjawab pertanyaan saya.

Quote
bisakah mencantumkan di sini, referensi sehubungan dengan kesadaran yg ada banyak ini dan diri besar kecil ini?

The Yogācāra textual corpus

Sutras

The Unravelling the Mystery of Thought Sutra (Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, 2nd century CE) was the seminal Yogācāra sutra and continued to be a primary referent for the tradition. Also containing Yogācāra elements were the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra (1st century CE) and Daśabhūmika Sūtra (pre-3rd century CE).[12] The later Descent into Laṅkā Sūtra (Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, 4th century CE) also assumed considerable importance.[13] Other prominent Yogācāra sutras include the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda Sūtra and the Ghanavyūha Sūtra.[14]

Five treatises of Maitreya

Among the most important texts to the Yogācāra tradition to be the Five Treatises of Maitreya. These texts are said to have been related to Asaṅga by the Buddha Maitreya. They are as follows:
Ornament for Clear Realization (Abhisamaya-alaṅkāra, Tib. mngon-par rtogs-pa'i rgyan)
Ornament for the Mahāyāna Sutras (Mahāyāna-sūtra-alaṅkāra, Tib. theg-pa chen-po'i mdo-sde'i rgyan)
Sublime Continuum of the Mahāyāna (Ratna-gotra-vibhāga, Tib. theg-pa chen-po rgyud bla-ma'i bstan)
Distinguishing Phenomena and Pure Being (Dharma-dharmatā-vibhāga, Tib. chos-dang chos-nyid rnam-par 'byed-pa)
Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes (Madhyānta-vibhāga, Tib. dbus-dang mtha' rnam-par 'byed-pa)

A commentary on the Ornament for Clear Realization called "Clarifying the Meaning" by Haribhadra is also often used, as is one by Vimuktisena.

Most of these texts were also incorporated into the Chinese tradition, which was established several centuries earlier than the Tibetan. However, the Ornament for Clear Realization is not mentioned by Chinese translators up to the 7th century, including Xuanzang, who was an expert in this field. This suggests it may possibly have emerged from a later period than is generally ascribed to it.

Other texts

Vasubandhu wrote three foundational texts of the Yogācāra: the Treatise on the Three Natures (Sanskrit: Trisvabhāva-nirdeśa, Tib. Rang-bzhin gsum nges-par bstan), the Treatise in Twenty Stanzas (Skt: Viṃśaṭikā-kārikā) and the Treatise in Thirty Stanzas (S: Triṃśikaikā-kārikā). He also wrote an important commentary on the Madhyantavibhaṅga. According to Buddhist scholar Jay Garfield:

While the Trisvabhāva-nirdeśa is arguably the most philosophically detailed and comprehensive of the three short works on this topic composed by Vasubandu, as well as the clearest, it is almost never read or taught in contemporary traditional cultures or centers of learning. The reason may be simply that this is the only one of Vasubandhu’s root texts for which no autocommmentary exists. For this reason, none of Vasubandhu’s students composed commentaries on the text and hence there is no recognized lineage of transmission for the text. So nobody within the Tibetan tradition (the only extant Mahāyāna scholarly tradition) could consider him or herself authorized to teach the text. It is therefore simply not studied, a great pity. It is a beautiful and deep philosophical essay and an unparalleled introduction to the Cittamatra system.

Authorship of critical Yogācāra texts is also ascribed to Asaṅga personally (in contrast to the Five Treatises of Maitreya). Among them are the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha and the Abhidharma-samuccaya. Sometimes also ascribed to him is the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra, a massive encyclopedic work considered the definitive statement of Yogācāra, but most scholars believe it was compiled a century later, in the 5th century.

Other important commentaries on various Yogācāra texts were written by Sthiramati (6th century) and Dharmapāla (7th century), and an influential Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka synthesis was formulated by Śāntarakṣita (8th century).

Yogacara and the Absolute

Another scholar sees a Buddhist Absolute in Consciousness. Writing on the Yogacara school of Buddhism, Dr. A. K. Chatterjee remarks: "The Absolute is a non-dual consciousness. The duality of the subject and object does not pertain to it. It is said to be void (sunya), devoid of duality; in itself it is perfectly real, in fact the only reality ...There is no consciousness of the Absolute; Consciousness is the Absolute."

Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Dr. Kosho Yamamoto, who translated the entire Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra into English, tells of how the Buddha speaks in that scripture of doctrines previously not articulated. Now, in order to correct people’s misunderstanding of the Dharma, the Buddha - according to Yamamoto - tells of how He speaks of the positive qualities of nirvana, which includes the self:

He [i.e. the Buddha] says that he is now ready to speak about the undisclosed teachings. Men abide in upside-down thoughts. So he will now speak of the affirmative attributes of Nirvana, which are none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and the Pure.

here we read in words attributed to the Buddha: "... it is not the case that they [i.e. all phenomena] are devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon ["dharma"] that is true ["satya"], real ["tattva"], eternal ["nitya"], sovereign/autonomous ["aishvarya"] and whose foundation is unchanging ["ashraya-aviparinama"] is termed 'the Self' [atman]." (translated from Dharmakṣema's version of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra)

Zen

The Zen Buddhist master, Sekkei Harada, likewise speaks of a true Self in his explications of Zen Buddhism. This true Self is found when one "forgets the ego-self".[17] Harada states that the doctrine of "no-self" really means awakening to a self that is without any limits and thus invisible: "No-self means to awaken to a Self that is so vast and limitless that it cannot be seen."[18] Harada concludes his reflections on Zen Buddhism by speaking of the need for an almost passionate encounter with the "person" of the essential True Self:

… in our lifetime there is only one person we must encounter, one person we must meet as though we were passionately in love. That person is the essential Self, the true Self. As long as you don’t meet this Self, it will be impossible to find true satisfaction in your heart …

Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra

Analogously, Professor Michael Zimmermann, a specialist on the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, writes: "the existence of an eternal, imperishable self, that is, buddhahood, is definitely the basic point of the Tathagatagarbha Sutra".

the Mahabheriharaka Sutra

the Mahabheriharaka Sutra insists: "... at the time one becomes a Tathagata, a Buddha, he is in nirvana, and is referred to as 'permanent', 'steadfast', 'calm', 'eternal', and 'Self' [atman]."

Srimala Sutra

Similarly, the Śrīmālā Sūtra declares unequivocally: "When sentient beings have faith in the Tathagata [Buddha] and those sentient beings conceive [him] with permanence, pleasure, self, and purity, they do not go astray. Those sentient beings have the right view. Why so? Because the Dharmakaya [ultimate nature] of the Tathagata has the perfection of permanence, the perfection of pleasure, the perfection of self, the perfection of purity. Whatever sentient beings see the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata that way, see correctly."


 _/\_


dengan asumsi bahwa referensi anda adalah benar, maka bahwa kesamaan yg ada adalah antara AGAMA MAHAYANA (bukan Agama Buddha secara umum) dengan HINDU.

Saya sangat menghormati Ajaran Theravada khususnya Bhante Dr.Walpola Sri Rahula Maha Thera pun dikalangan Theravada beliau dihormati sebagai cendekiawan jujur dan berwibawa, entah dengan anda   :)

 _/\_

tentu saja saya juga menghormati beliau, tetapi pendapat pihak ke 3 bukanlah sumber valid dalam memutuskan suatu perselisihan dalam diskusi. kita harus sepakat dulu bahwa referensi valid dari sisi Theravada adalah Tipitaka, dan dari sisi Mahayana adalah Tripitaka. bukan opini-opini pihak ke 3 bahkan walaupun dari seorang yg sangat terpelajar

dan saya bukan saja menghormati Ajaran Theravada, bahkan saya juga menganut ajaran Theravada.

dan menghormati seseorang tidak sama dengan menerima semua apa yg dikatakannya, saya juga punya pikiran sendiri dan hanya menerima sesuai dengan pertimbangan saya sendiri setelah membandingkannya dengan banyak hal.
« Last Edit: 25 September 2010, 08:25:14 PM by Indra »

Offline adi lim

  • Sebelumnya: adiharto
  • KalyanaMitta
  • *****
  • Posts: 4.993
  • Reputasi: 108
  • Gender: Male
  • Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta
Re: Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi)
« Reply #89 on: 25 September 2010, 08:24:06 PM »
Saya tidak berani mengatakan ajaran Theravada tidak lengkap namun menurut Bhante The venerable Prof Walpola Sri Rahula Maha Thera (1907-1997) seperti ini :

Some people think that Voidness or Sunyata discussed by Nagarjuna is purely a Mahayana teaching. It is based on the idea of Anatta or non-self, on the Paticcasamuppada or the Dependent Origination, found in the original Theravada Pali texts. Once Ananda asked the Buddha, "People say the word Sunya. What is Sunya?" The Buddha replied, "Ananda, there is no self, nor anything pertaining to self in this world. Therefore, the world is empty." This idea was taken by Nagarjuna when he wrote his remarkable book, "Madhyamika Karika". Besides the idea of Sunyata is the concept of the store-consciousness in Mahayana Buddhism which has its seed in the Theravada texts. The Mahayanists have developed it into a deep psychology and philosophy.

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html


Tanpa mengurangi rasa hormat pada penulis, namun saya tetap lebih menyukai sumber valid sutta/sutra bukan opini pihak ke3, walupun berasal dari Maha Super Thera. dan kutipan di atas juga belum menjawab pertanyaan saya.

Quote
bisakah mencantumkan di sini, referensi sehubungan dengan kesadaran yg ada banyak ini dan diri besar kecil ini?

The Yogācāra textual corpus

Sutras

The Unravelling the Mystery of Thought Sutra (Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, 2nd century CE) was the seminal Yogācāra sutra and continued to be a primary referent for the tradition. Also containing Yogācāra elements were the Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra (1st century CE) and Daśabhūmika Sūtra (pre-3rd century CE).[12] The later Descent into Laṅkā Sūtra (Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, 4th century CE) also assumed considerable importance.[13] Other prominent Yogācāra sutras include the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda Sūtra and the Ghanavyūha Sūtra.[14]

Five treatises of Maitreya

Among the most important texts to the Yogācāra tradition to be the Five Treatises of Maitreya. These texts are said to have been related to Asaṅga by the Buddha Maitreya. They are as follows:
Ornament for Clear Realization (Abhisamaya-alaṅkāra, Tib. mngon-par rtogs-pa'i rgyan)
Ornament for the Mahāyāna Sutras (Mahāyāna-sūtra-alaṅkāra, Tib. theg-pa chen-po'i mdo-sde'i rgyan)
Sublime Continuum of the Mahāyāna (Ratna-gotra-vibhāga, Tib. theg-pa chen-po rgyud bla-ma'i bstan)
Distinguishing Phenomena and Pure Being (Dharma-dharmatā-vibhāga, Tib. chos-dang chos-nyid rnam-par 'byed-pa)
Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes (Madhyānta-vibhāga, Tib. dbus-dang mtha' rnam-par 'byed-pa)

A commentary on the Ornament for Clear Realization called "Clarifying the Meaning" by Haribhadra is also often used, as is one by Vimuktisena.

Most of these texts were also incorporated into the Chinese tradition, which was established several centuries earlier than the Tibetan. However, the Ornament for Clear Realization is not mentioned by Chinese translators up to the 7th century, including Xuanzang, who was an expert in this field. This suggests it may possibly have emerged from a later period than is generally ascribed to it.

Other texts

Vasubandhu wrote three foundational texts of the Yogācāra: the Treatise on the Three Natures (Sanskrit: Trisvabhāva-nirdeśa, Tib. Rang-bzhin gsum nges-par bstan), the Treatise in Twenty Stanzas (Skt: Viṃśaṭikā-kārikā) and the Treatise in Thirty Stanzas (S: Triṃśikaikā-kārikā). He also wrote an important commentary on the Madhyantavibhaṅga. According to Buddhist scholar Jay Garfield:

While the Trisvabhāva-nirdeśa is arguably the most philosophically detailed and comprehensive of the three short works on this topic composed by Vasubandu, as well as the clearest, it is almost never read or taught in contemporary traditional cultures or centers of learning. The reason may be simply that this is the only one of Vasubandhu’s root texts for which no autocommmentary exists. For this reason, none of Vasubandhu’s students composed commentaries on the text and hence there is no recognized lineage of transmission for the text. So nobody within the Tibetan tradition (the only extant Mahāyāna scholarly tradition) could consider him or herself authorized to teach the text. It is therefore simply not studied, a great pity. It is a beautiful and deep philosophical essay and an unparalleled introduction to the Cittamatra system.

Authorship of critical Yogācāra texts is also ascribed to Asaṅga personally (in contrast to the Five Treatises of Maitreya). Among them are the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha and the Abhidharma-samuccaya. Sometimes also ascribed to him is the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra, a massive encyclopedic work considered the definitive statement of Yogācāra, but most scholars believe it was compiled a century later, in the 5th century.

Other important commentaries on various Yogācāra texts were written by Sthiramati (6th century) and Dharmapāla (7th century), and an influential Yogācāra-Mādhyamaka synthesis was formulated by Śāntarakṣita (8th century).

Yogacara and the Absolute

Another scholar sees a Buddhist Absolute in Consciousness. Writing on the Yogacara school of Buddhism, Dr. A. K. Chatterjee remarks: "The Absolute is a non-dual consciousness. The duality of the subject and object does not pertain to it. It is said to be void (sunya), devoid of duality; in itself it is perfectly real, in fact the only reality ...There is no consciousness of the Absolute; Consciousness is the Absolute."

Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Dr. Kosho Yamamoto, who translated the entire Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra into English, tells of how the Buddha speaks in that scripture of doctrines previously not articulated. Now, in order to correct people’s misunderstanding of the Dharma, the Buddha - according to Yamamoto - tells of how He speaks of the positive qualities of nirvana, which includes the self:

He [i.e. the Buddha] says that he is now ready to speak about the undisclosed teachings. Men abide in upside-down thoughts. So he will now speak of the affirmative attributes of Nirvana, which are none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and the Pure.

here we read in words attributed to the Buddha: "... it is not the case that they [i.e. all phenomena] are devoid of the Self. What is this Self? Any phenomenon ["dharma"] that is true ["satya"], real ["tattva"], eternal ["nitya"], sovereign/autonomous ["aishvarya"] and whose foundation is unchanging ["ashraya-aviparinama"] is termed 'the Self' [atman]." (translated from Dharmakṣema's version of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra)

Zen

The Zen Buddhist master, Sekkei Harada, likewise speaks of a true Self in his explications of Zen Buddhism. This true Self is found when one "forgets the ego-self".[17] Harada states that the doctrine of "no-self" really means awakening to a self that is without any limits and thus invisible: "No-self means to awaken to a Self that is so vast and limitless that it cannot be seen."[18] Harada concludes his reflections on Zen Buddhism by speaking of the need for an almost passionate encounter with the "person" of the essential True Self:

… in our lifetime there is only one person we must encounter, one person we must meet as though we were passionately in love. That person is the essential Self, the true Self. As long as you don’t meet this Self, it will be impossible to find true satisfaction in your heart …

Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra

Analogously, Professor Michael Zimmermann, a specialist on the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, writes: "the existence of an eternal, imperishable self, that is, buddhahood, is definitely the basic point of the Tathagatagarbha Sutra".

the Mahabheriharaka Sutra

the Mahabheriharaka Sutra insists: "... at the time one becomes a Tathagata, a Buddha, he is in nirvana, and is referred to as 'permanent', 'steadfast', 'calm', 'eternal', and 'Self' [atman]."

Srimala Sutra

Similarly, the Śrīmālā Sūtra declares unequivocally: "When sentient beings have faith in the Tathagata [Buddha] and those sentient beings conceive [him] with permanence, pleasure, self, and purity, they do not go astray. Those sentient beings have the right view. Why so? Because the Dharmakaya [ultimate nature] of the Tathagata has the perfection of permanence, the perfection of pleasure, the perfection of self, the perfection of purity. Whatever sentient beings see the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata that way, see correctly."


 _/\_


dengan asumsi bahwa referensi anda adalah benar, maka bahwa kesamaan yg ada adalah antara AGAMA MAHAYANA (bukan Agama Buddha secara umum) dengan HINDU.

Saya sangat menghormati Ajaran Theravada khususnya Bhante Dr.Walpola Sri Rahula Maha Thera pun dikalangan Theravada beliau dihormati sebagai cendekiawan jujur dan berwibawa, entah dengan anda   :)

 _/\_

 ???

 _/\_
 
Seringlah PancaKhanda direnungkan sebagai Ini Bukan MILIKKU, Ini Bukan AKU, Ini Bukan DIRIKU, bermanfaat mengurangi keSERAKAHan, mengurangi keSOMBONGan, Semoga dapat menjauhi Pandangan SALAH.