A Fistful of Sand

In a conversation with an aged Brahmin, the Buddha once explained concisely what a Buddha, an enlightened one, means: What has to be known, that I have known (the five aggregates); What has to be abandoned, that I have abandoned; (the defilements) What has to be developed, that I have developed (concentrations & wisdom); Therefore, O Brahmin, I am a Buddha. These are not only three characteristics of a Buddha; they are also the three objectives we aim at in following the Buddha’s teaching. We follow the Dharma to fully know what should be known; to abandon what should be abandoned; and to develop what should be developed. These are the goals of the Buddhist path and the three accomplishments that mark the attainment of enlightenment. For most of us we can change the Buddha’s statement slightly and we will be adequately described. What has to be known, that I have learning; What has to be abandoned, that I am abandoning; What has to be developed, that I am ...

BY CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY LEIBOW This is a reposted blog article by Sensei Keisho Ananda of Hongaku Jodo . It is well worth the read. Please check him out. Does Buddhism Need A Dhamma Police ? When I took refuge years ago I took refuge in The Buddha, The Dhamma (Dharma) and The Sangha.  The Dhamma is considered to be the body of the teachings of the Buddha . . . but where are the teachings, how do we know which dhamma, which teachings, are The Dhamma?  Do we need a Dhamma Police to make sure that Buddhists follow the “true dhamma”?  I think not and I hope not, and I’ll tell you why. First let’s take a look at where the teachings or the dhamma might be found.  Buddhism, like all traditions that are really, really old, started out as an oral tradition. Three months after the Death of the Buddha 500 pre-eminent Arahants concerned with  preserving the purity of the dhamma held a convocation at  Rajagaha to rehearse the teachings. ...

I received this question through an email. It seemed like a reasonable question and points that there are teachings in Buddhism that are not terribly Buddhist at all. These distortions of what the Buddha taught are so common that we often take them for granted without question. This emailer question the standard distorted teaching.  How does a Bodhisattva save sentient beings when there are no beings to save. From a practical position this seems like quite a tricky paradox. I mean in your studies you at some point realise that you don't actually exist from the perspective of being interdependent from other things, yet of course you do....paradoxes abound eh! One question that might need to be answered is where do these vows come from. That may help us understand their meaning. Then I will discuss some of the more obvious problems with the vow as it is presented today and offer a solution to the apparent paradox. Origins of the Vow Current wisdom has it that the Bodh...

It had been a few years, maybe 20 of them, since I read the Mahayana version of the Brahma Net Sutra. It is very different from the Pali Canon’s version although they touch on similar subjects. That brief touching and the name are the things they actually have in common aside from the claim that they were both taught by the Buddha. The odds that the Buddha spoke both are slim. The two teachings are not actually related. There is so much wrong with the Mahayana Brahma Net Sutra that one hardly knows where to start. Of course, the answer to any criticism might be, “You don’t understand the Sutra” or “You don’t appreciate the Mahayana teachings” or even “You don’t grasp the significance of the bodhisattva.” These are all standard defense of those who actually like the Sutra and want it propagated. As a matter of fact, I do appreciate the bodhisattva teachings but only when they are correctly portrayed. I appreciate the Mahayana as I have gained much from it. As to whether I under...