Adakah Atman dalam Agama Buddha ?

[Nevada]

nah omong-omong..klo penjelasan saya siapa yah sahabat umat yang ada dapat mengerti tulisan saya ini...?

Saya pikir di DC ini tidak ada yang mengerti, Bro. Kalau boleh tahu, apakah ada orang lain di luar Forum DC yang mengerti penjelasan Anda?

[Mahadeva]

kalau menurut saya nda ada atman kok...malah aneh kalo ada atman.

[Xan To]

wah menarik juga nih bahasanx 

kalo dibaca2 sekilas sya jadi bertanya, apakah atman yang kita maksud sama dengan atman yg dipahami pada zaman Sang Buddha , kalo sy baca mengenai perdebatan Sang Buddha dengan bramana Yassa (kemudian menjadi murid Sang Buddha) saya liat yang diomongin tentang apa yg bisa dicerap dari jasmani ini, yaitu Bathin dan Rupa , Trus Atman itu apa ya?!

[xenocross]

sahabat coecoed
cari aja ebooknya, atau butuh kuemailkan?

Di buku yang menjelimet itu secara lengkap dibantah dengan logika, tentang keberadaan Atman dan Tuhan yg gak mungkin ada, berdasarkan Chandrakirti, yang adalah murid dari Nagarjuna.
Aku hanya copas bagian2 yang konklusif aja, krn sisanya ya itu, argumen njelimet yang bikin bingung kalau dibaca sekilas. Kalau serius mau belajar cari bukunya atau pm saya email

[xenocross]

kemana nih TS nya, ayo tanggung jawab sudah bikin saya pusing dan copas panjang-panjang...

[Indra]

kemana nih TS nya, ayo tanggung jawab sudah bikin saya pusing dan copas panjang-panjang...

sabar bro, jam praktek TS cuma jam 7-10pm

[xenocross]

karena TS penggemar wiki, ini saya copas dari wiki yang sama

Within the Mahāyāna branch of Buddhism, there exists an important class of sutras (influential upon Ch'an and Zen Buddhism), generally known as Buddha nature (tathāgatagarbha) sutras (also: "Buddha-matrix" or "Buddha-embryo" sutras), a number of which affirm that, in contradistinction to the impermanent "mundane self" of the five skandhas (the physical and mental components of the mutable ego), there does exist an eternal true self, which is in fact none other than the Buddha himself in his ultimate nirvanic nature. This is the "true self" in the self of each being, the ideal personality, attainable by all beings due to their inborn potential for enlightenment. The Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (ātman); rather, it is a positive language and expression of emptiness (śūnyatā) and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices; the intention of the teaching of Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.

Prior to the period of the tathāgatagarbha genre, Mahāyāna metaphysics had been dominated by teachings on emptiness in the form of Madhyamaka philosophy. The language used by this approach is primarily negative, and the tathāgatagarbha genre of sutras can be seen as an attempt to state orthodox Buddhist teachings of dependent origination using positive language instead, to prevent people from being turned away from Buddhism by a false impression of nihilism. In these sutras the perfection of the wisdom of not-self is stated to be the true self; the ultimate goal of the path is then characterized using a range of positive language that had been used in Indian philosophy previously by essentialist philosophers, but which was now transmuted into a new Buddhist vocabulary to describe a being who has successfully completed the Buddhist path.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atman_Buddhism

[Triyana2009]

Namo Buddhaya,

[at]  Bro Triyana,
jika anda membuka suatu topik dengan judul "Ada atman dalam Agama Buddha", judul topik ini saja sudah menunjukkan prinsip dan keyakinan anda, jadi bagaimana kita bisa berdiskusi?
saya lihat anda hanya memerlukan pendapat2 yg sama dengan anda.

jadi silahkan yg sependapat dengan Bro Triyana berpartisipasi di sini

Siapa yg bilang begitu  , yang tidak setuju boleh mendebat disini  

 

[Triyana2009]

Namo Buddhaya,

Silahkan dicerna dahulu baik-baik dari apa yang dimaksud Sang Buddha dalam Lankavatara Sutra Bab 6, khususnya yang dibold, jangan berdasarkan pendapat orang, coba cerna dengan pikiran sendiri.

Tathagata-garbha is not the same as the ego taught by the philosophers; for what the Tathagatas teach is the Tathagata-garbha in the sense, Mahamati, that it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort; the reason why the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones, teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathagata-garbha is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness.

Ini tertera dalam SUTRA MAHAYANA, bukan pendapat saya, bukan pendapat seorang bhiksu, bukan pendapat kelompok yang baru muncul belakangan.

Sudah saya tanggapi di Thread Agama dan Kepercayaan lainnya..... 

 

[Triyana2009]

Namo Buddhaya,

yah ada trit baru.... itu yang saya post di trit asli apa perlu direpost kesini?

saya bantuin ya

saya ubek2 koleksi ebook saya nih


Q : A re you familiar with the Hindu concepts of atman and brahman ?

Lama: While Hindu philosophy accepts the idea of a soul [atman], Buddhism does not. We completely deny the existence of a self-existent I, or a permanent, independent soul. Every aspect of your body
and mind is impermanent: changing, changing, changing. . . .
Buddhists also deny the existence of a permanent hell. Every pain, every pleasure we experience is in a state of constant flux; so transitory, so impermanent, always changing, never lasting. Therefore,
recognizing the dissatisfactory nature of our existence and renouncing the world in which transitory sense objects contact transitory sense organs to produce transitory feelings, none of which are worth
grasping at, we seek instead the everlasting, eternally joyful realizations of enlightenment or nirvana.
(hal 43)

Lama: Philosophically, the soul can be interpreted in a number of ways. In Christianity and Hinduism, the soul is different from the mind and is considered to be something permanent and self-existent.
In my opinion, there’s no such thing. In Buddhist terminology, the soul, mind or whatever you call it is ever-changing, impermanent. I don’t really make a distinction between mind and soul, but within yourself you can’t find anything that’s permanent or selfexistent.
With respect to mental problems, don’t think that the mind is totally negative; it’s the uncontrolled mind that causes problems. If you develop the right kind of wisdom and thereby recognize
the nature of the uncontrolled mind, it will automatically disappear.
But until you do, the uncontrolled mind will completely dominate you.
(hal 62)

Q: What is our mind’s true nature and how do we go about recognizing it?

Lama: There are two aspects to the mind’s nature, the relative and the absolute. The relative is the mind that perceives and functions in the sense world. We also call that mind dualistic and because of
what I describe as its “that-this” perception, it is totally agitated in nature. However, by transcending the dualistic mind, you can unify your view. At that time you realize the absolute true nature of the
mind, which is totally beyond the duality. In dealing with the sense world in our normal, everyday, mundane life, two things always appear. The appearance of two things always creates a problem. It’s
like children—one alone is OK, two together always make trouble.
Similarly, as our five senses interpret the world and supply dualistic information to our mind, our mind grasps at that view, and that automatically causes conflict and agitation. This is the complete
opposite of the experience of inner peace and freedom. Therefore, by reaching beyond that you will experience perfect peace. Now, this is just a short reply to what you asked and perhaps it’s unsatisfactory,
because it’s a big question. What I’ve said is merely a simple introduction to a profound topic. However, if you have some background in this subject, my answer might satisfy you.
(hal62-63)

Becoming Your Own Therapist
New Expanded Edition
Including
Make Your Mind an Ocean
Lama Yeshe
LAMA YESHE WISDOM ARCHIVE

Silahkan dicerna dahulu baik-baik dari apa yang dimaksud Sang Buddha dalam Lankavatara Sutra Bab 6, khususnya yang dibold, jangan berdasarkan pendapat orang, coba cerna dengan pikiran sendiri.

Tathagata-garbha is not the same as the ego taught by the philosophers; for what the Tathagatas teach is the Tathagata-garbha in the sense, Mahamati, that it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid of will-effort; the reason why the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones, teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathagata-garbha is to make the ignorant cast aside their fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness.

Ini tertera dalam SUTRA MAHAYANA, bukan pendapat saya, bukan pendapat seorang bhiksu, bukan pendapat kelompok yang baru muncul belakangan.

mungkin karena sutra sang buddha sudah ketinggalan jaman makanya dari wiki itu lebih valid oom

• BOSTON
[/B]
www.fpmt.org

Ya dilihat dulu dan baca apakah yang ada di Wikipedia itu benar atau keliru, jangan cepat ambil kesimpulan dulu 

 

[Triyana2009]

Namo Buddhaya,

sudah menjadi sifatnya bahwa tidak ada yang telah muncul,
tidak ada yang akan muncul, tidak ada yang eksis (saat ini),
tak ada (obyek) yang berdiam, tak ada subyek, tidak ada suatu hal yang eksis
Semoga aku merealisasikan kekosongan fenomena (sunyata)

(Sesungguhnya) seperti tidak ada Buddha, tak ada resi agung,
tidak ada makhluk biasa, tidak ada kehidupan,
tidak ada makhluk hidup, dan tiada yang hidup
Semoga aku merealisasi ke-tanpa aku-an (anatta)

(Arya Maitreya Prayer/ Arya Matripranidhanaraja)


The Bhagavän said, “Subhüti, it is so; if some bodhisattva were to say, ‘I shall cause sentient beings to completely pass beyond sorrow,’ he should not be called ‘bodhisattva.’ Why is that? Subhüti, does the dharma that is called ‘bodhisattva’ exist whatsoever?”
Subhüti replied, “Bhagavän, it does not.”
The Bhagavän said, “Subhüti, therefore, it was taught by the Tathägata that ‘all dharmas are without a sentient being, without a living being, without a person.’
“Subhüti, if some bodhisattva were to say, ‘I shall actualize arranged fields,’ he too should be expressed similarly.52 Why is that? Subhüti, because the arranged fields called ‘arranged fields’
are those taught by the Tathägata as non-arranged. Therefore, they are called ‘arranged fields.’ Subhüti, whatever bodhisattva appreciates that dharmas are selfless, saying ‘dharmas are selfless,’
he is expressed by the Tathägata Arhat Perfectly Completed Buddha as a bodhisattva called a ‘bodhisattva.’
.........
“Subhüti, what do you think about this? If it is thought that the Tathägata considers, ‘Sentient beings are liberated by me,’
Subhüti, do not view it like that. Why is that? Subhüti, because those sentient beings who are liberated by the Tathägata do not exist whatsoever. Subhüti, if some sentient being were to be liberated by the Tathägata, that itself would be, of the Tathägata, grasping a self, grasping a sentient being, grasping a living being, grasping a person. Subhüti, so-called ‘grasping a self,’ that is taught by the Tathägata as non-grasping, yet that is grasped by childish ordinary beings. Subhüti, so-called ‘childish ordinary
beings,’ they were taught by the Tathägata as just non-beings; therefore, they are called ‘childish ordinary beings.’
Vajracedika Sutta
The Exalted Mahäyäna Sütra
on the Wisdom Gone Beyond called
THE VAJRA CUTTER
based on the Tibetan Lhasa Zhol printing
translated into English by Gelong Thubten Tsultrim
www.fpmt.org


"He or she needs to keep in view, fully and in detail, the five aggregate factors of his or her experience and those as devoid of self-establishing nature. Form - voidness; voidness - form. Form not separate from voidness; voidness not separate from form. (What has form, that has voidness; what has voidness, that has form.) Similarly, feeling, distinguishing, affecting variables, types of consciousness - voidness. It's like that, Shariputra, with all phenomena - voidness: no defining characteristics, no arising, no stopping, no being stained, no being parted from stain, no being deficient, no being additional.

"Because it's like that, Shariputra, in voidness, no form, no feeling, no distinction, no affecting variables, no kind of consciousness. No eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind. No sight, no sound, no smell, no taste, no physical sensation, no phenomena. No cognitive source that's an eye, up to no cognitive source that's a mind, (no cognitive source that's phenomena), no cognitive source that's mental consciousness. No unawareness, no elimination of unawareness, up to no aging and death, no elimination of aging and death. Likewise, no suffering, cause, stopping, and pathway mind. No deep awareness, no attainment, no non-attainment.
The Heart Sutra

Kalo diri sesungguhnya memang tidak ada tetapi Diri Buddha ada.

This true Self is found when one "forgets the ego-self". 

 

[Triyana2009]

Namo Buddhaya,

“On that night, in the third watch (about 1:00 A.M.) so that no one else
knew, [Shenxiu] took a lamp and wrote his verse on the wall of the south corridor,
submitting [to the patriarch] the viewpoint of his mind. The verse read:

The body is the bodhi tree;
The mind is like a bright mirror’s stand.
Be always diligent in rubbing it—
Do not let it attract any dust.
(hal 20)

“The Administrative Aide said, ‘Just recite your verse. I will write it for
you. If you attain the Dharma, you must save me first (i.e., before teaching
anyone else). Don’t forget what I say!’
“My verse went:

Bodhi is fundamentally without any tree;
The bright mirror is also not a stand.
Fundamentally there is not a single thing—
Where could any dust be attracted?
(hal 22)

THE PLATFORM SUTRA OF THE SIXTH PATRIARCH
Translated from the Chinese of Zongbao
(Taishō Volume 48, Number 2008)
by John R. McRae
Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research
2000

Question: Should a person who has lost the ego-self be called a Buddha?

Harada Roshi: Buddha is only a provisional name. It isn’t really possible to attach a name to something which has no center, is it? However, the Patriarchs, those people who attained “no-self,” used various names to refer to this condition. To give one example, long ago in China there was a priest named Zuigan. Everyday he would call out to himself, “True Self! Are your eyes wide open?” “Yes, yes.” Then he would say, “Don’t be fooled by others (symbols).” “No, no,” he would answer. He lived his life always admonishing himself in this manner.

I think you all have mirrors at home. If you have time, why not try facing a mirror and calling out “True Self” (Roshi laughs).

 

[Triyana2009]

Namo Buddhaya,

jadi kalau Sutra-sutra sudah bilang gak ada Atman, dan sesepuh ke-6 Zen juga bilang begitu....

Ngapain ngikutin master Zen yang ke-sekian? OK?

Baca :

http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/Suzuki_Studies_in_the_Lankavatara.pdf

 

[Triyana2009]

Namo Buddhaya,

kemana nih TS nya, ayo tanggung jawab sudah bikin saya pusing dan copas panjang-panjang...

Sabar 

 

[Triyana2009]

Namo Buddhaya,

Sudah dulu ya, saya lanjutkan besok, terima kasih.