Adakah Atman dalam Agama Buddha ?

[xenocross]

sebenarnya gampang. Bro Triyana jabarkan persamaan dan perbedaan Atman dengan Tathagatagarbha. Pasti nanti sadar sendiri kok.

[Triyana2009]

Namo Buddhaya,

Suatu waktu Ananda bertanya kepada Buddha : "Orang berkata bahwa dunia adalah Sunya. Apakah Sunya itu?"

Buddha menjawab: "Ananda, tak ada Inti Diri di dunia ini. Karena itu dunia adalah Hampa".

Pendapat ini diambil oleh Nagarjuna ketika ia menulis bukunya yang mengagumkan "Madyamika Karika".




kalau ngikut triyana, keknya buku nagarjuna harus direvisi yak

Anda sebaiknya hati-hati dalam memberikan pernyataan, harus bertanggungjawab dan jangan sembarangan mencuplik Naskah-Naskah Suci.

Silahkan saya tunggu 

 

[Triyana2009]

Namo Buddhaya,

sebenarnya gampang. Bro Triyana jabarkan persamaan dan perbedaan Atman dengan Tathagatagarbha. Pasti nanti sadar sendiri kok.

Silahkan anda jabarkan perbedaan antara Atman dengan Tathagatagarbha  nanti saya tanggapi.

Pasti nanti sadar sendiri kok = Ada-ada saja

 

[Triyana2009]

Namo Buddhaya,

Namo Buddhaya,

Sebelumnya saya telah membuat post yang juga membahas Atman dalam Agama Buddha dan Hindu (Agama Buddha dan Agama Hindu kesamaan dan perbedaan. (Mari kita diskusi) ) di thread Agama dan Kepercayaan lainnya.

Kali ini saya akan fokus pada Atman dalam Agama Buddha saja.

Silahkan didebat, kritik, saran.

sebenarnya kalau ditanya ada apa gak, ya ada sih
Di kitab suci selalu disebut-sebut atman
bahwa atman tidak ada

coba baca lagi lankavatara Sutra, dan selidiki kenapa bisa digunakan 2 istilah atman dan Tathagatagarbha.
Jika keduanya sama, kenapa sutra tsb bilang beda? jika keduanya sama, kenapa memakai 2 istilah? Jika tathagatagarbha = atman, kenapa sutra tersebut bilang atman tidak ada, tetapi tathagatagarbha ada?

Ya kalau atman memang sebenarnya tidak ada, tetapi Atman ada.

Silahkan dibaca kembali studi Dr.Suzuki 

 

[coecoed]

semua adalah kosong :
Saat Arya Bodhisatva Avalokitesvara sedang meditasi Kebijaksanaan Sempurna (Prajnaparamita), Ia mendapat pemahaman bahwa kesemua panca khandha --- bentuk, perasaan, pencerapan, pikiran, kesadaran --- adalah kosong. Hingga akhirnya, Ia mengatasi semua penyakit dan penderitaan.
O, Sariputra, bentuk (rupa) tidak-lah dapat dibedakan dari kekosongan (sunyata), dan kekosongan tidak dapat dibedakan dari bentuk. Bentuk adalah kosong dan kosong adalah bentuk. Demikian juga perasaan (vedana), pencerapan (sanna), pikiran (sankhara), kesadaran (vinnana).
.
Oleh karena ituSariputra, ciri-ciri dari kekosongan semua Dhamma adalah tanpa awal, tanpa akhir, tidak kotor, tidak murni, tidak bertambah, tidak berkurang, di dalam kekosongan, tiada bentuk, perasaan, pencerapan, pikiran, dan kesadaran. Tiada juga mata (caksuh), telinga (srotram), hidung (grahnam), lidah (jihva), badan (kaya), batin (manasa). Tiada bentuk (rupa), suara (sabda), bau (gandah), rasa, sentuhan (sparstavyam), maupun dhamma. Tiada unsur penglihatan (caksu dhatu), hingga tiada unsur pikiran dan kesadaran (mano-vinnanam dhatu). Tiada kebodohan (avijja), tiada akhir kebodohan (avijja-ksayo), hingga tiada usia tua dan kematian (jaramaranam-ksayo), tiada akhir dari usia tua dan kematian. Demikian pula, tiada penderitaan (dukkha), asal mula dukkha (samudayah), lenyapnya dukkha (nirodha), jalan menuju lenyapnya dukkha (marga). Tiada kebijaksanaan (jahna), pencapaian (prapti), dan akhir pencapaian (abhi samaya).
Demikianlah, karena bodhisatva tidak mempunyai apa yang perlu dicapai, Ia berada dan berdiam di dalam prajnaparamita. Tiada rintangan dalam pikiran. Tanpa rintangan dalam pikiran, Ia tidak memiliki rasa takut serta tiada rintangan kesempurnaan. Hingga akhirnya, Ia mengatasi khayalan menyesatkan dan mencapai Nibbana Sejati.
Buddha dari ketiga masa --- lalu, sekarang, mendatang --- dengan bersandar pada Prajnaparamita mencapai kebuddhaan pada tingkat yang tiada tara, yaitu samyaksambodhi. Oleh karena itu, Prajnaparamita, mantra pengetahuan agung, mantra tiada tanding, mantra tertinggi, mantra yang pasti dapat melenyapkan semua dukkha, yang di dalamnya tiada cacat, harus dipahami sebagai kebenaran. Mantra Prajnaparamita dibaca: "GATE GATE PARA GATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA"

Suatu waktu Ananda bertanya kepada Buddha : "Orang berkata bahwa dunia adalah Sunya. Apakah Sunya itu?"

Buddha menjawab: "Ananda, tak ada Inti Diri di dunia ini. Karena itu dunia adalah Hampa".

Pendapat ini diambil oleh Nagarjuna ketika ia menulis bukunya yang mengagumkan "Madyamika Karika".




kalau ngikut triyana, keknya buku nagarjuna harus direvisi yak

itulah masalahnya, karena duniawi sehingga tidak dapat membedakan yang mana yang duniawi yang mana yang bukan duniawi, sehingga yang duniawi/umat menyama-ratakan mencerap dan menyampaiakn apa yang tertulis dalam ajaran. seolah-olah semua yang ada (terlihat) adalah duniawi, (karena) menurut ukuran duniawi mereka.
sehingga menimbulkan tidak dapat membedakan seperti tulisan dibawah ini dan menyamakan yang duniawi dengan yang bukan duniawi . dan mengistilahkan (menyimpulkan) yang bukan duniawi sama sebagai yang duniawi, padahal tidak mengetahui apa-apa sesungguhnya.
 
semoga ada yang dapat mencerap tulisan saya dan mantra dibawah
gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha
sahabat umat
coeda, the believer

The Finish Solution:
The Atman Is Anatman.
The Anatman Is Atman.
The Atman Is Bodhi.
The Anatman Is Bodhi.
The Bodhi Is Atman.
The Bodhi Is Anatman.

[coecoed]

saya tambahan lagi kamus istilah tulisan saya, semoga dapat sedikit membantu :
Sunyata bukan kekosongan nihil/kekosongan kosong/kekosongan hampa. ada kehidupan yang disebut Nibanna.

sahabat umat yang mengganggu kemapanan pandangan kemelekatan duniawi keakuan umat
coeda, the believer

[Triyana2009]

Namo Buddhaya,

The Finish Solution:
The Atman Is Anatman.
The Anatman Is Atman.
The Atman Is Bodhi.
The Anatman Is Bodhi.
The Bodhi Is Atman.
The Bodhi Is Anatman.

Maksudnya gimana ya? 

 

[coecoed]

oh prestasiku tidak ada yang menambahkan, masih aman setidak-tidaknya.... (-3).
thang you cidev buat ucapan thank younya.

[ryu]

saya tambahan lagi kamus istilah tulisan saya, semoga dapat sedikit membantu :
Sunyata bukan kekosongan nihil/kekosongan kosong/kekosongan hampa. ada kehidupan yang disebut Nibanna.

sahabat umat yang mengganggu kemapanan pandangan kemelekatan duniawi keakuan umat
coeda, the believer

saya tambahan lagi kamus istilah tulisan saya, semoga dapat sedikit membantu :
Tuhan itu tidak ada karena tidak pernah masuk tipi, Setan justru yang terlihat ada karena sering msuk tipi.

[xenocross]

Ya kalau atman memang sebenarnya tidak ada, tetapi Atman ada.

Silahkan dibaca kembali studi Dr.Suzuki 

 

kok makin bingung? apa bedanya atman dengan Atman?
saya sudah baca bukunya dan tidak ada yang mengatakan atman itu ada. Bisa dikasih petunjuk halaman berapa?

[coecoed]

saya tambahan lagi kamus istilah tulisan saya, semoga dapat sedikit membantu :
Sunyata bukan kekosongan nihil/kekosongan kosong/kekosongan hampa. ada kehidupan yang disebut Nibanna.

sahabat umat yang mengganggu kemapanan pandangan kemelekatan duniawi keakuan umat
coeda, the believer

saya tambahan lagi kamus istilah tulisan saya, semoga dapat sedikit membantu :
Tuhan itu tidak ada karena tidak pernah masuk tipi, Setan justru yang terlihat ada karena sering msuk tipi.

itulah makanya ada disebut 'duniawi'.


semoga semua tulisan dapat menjadi semakin jelas tercerna, saat mau merendahkan hati menangggalkan keangkuhan kemapanan kebijaksanaan palsu keakuan fana diri
coeda, the believer

[xenocross]

Basically we’re talking about Buddha-nature. We have to be really careful when establishing the idea of this Buddha-nature, otherwise it might end up becoming something like atman or a truly existing soul and so on. That’s why we talk about it as a quality that is the absence of the dirt. I’m telling you to be careful because the Mahayana shastras talk about the qualities of this ‘result of freedom’: the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the 32 major marks, the 80 minor marks, and so on. If you’re not careful, then you might start to think more theistically again. But all these are qualities of the absence of dirt
(hal 3)

Buddha-nature & atman in Hinduism
[Q] On which bhumi does a Bodhisattva emanate more than one form?
[A] The first bhumi. Why do you want to know that?
[Q] Curiosity! I want to ask a question that had to come up sooner or later with this text, I think. I don’t have my texts of the Avadhuta Gita or the Dattatreya with me, but I seem to remember one stanza that goes something like “How can I say
who I am? There was never a time when I was not. I have no name, no form. I am all pervading like the sky. I am immutable. One without another”

[A] Is this Krishna speaking?
[Q] No, this is Dattatreya.
[A] I see. And then?
[Q] I’m wondering if enlightenment is only possible through Buddha-nature, and if Dattatreya isn’t enlightened, then what is he speaking about?
[A] What makes you think that Dattatreya isn’t enlightened?
[Q] Because I think in what we’ve been learning, the Hindu view is not a complete view, and therefore complete enlightenment is not possible.
[A] That’s true.
[Q] Can you resolve this for me please?
[A] That’s very difficult! In the 11th century in Tibet, Atisha Dipamkara cried upon receiving the news that Maitripa had died in India. He said that “There are only two people in the whole world that can differentiate between the Hindus and the Buddhists, and one of them, Maitripa, has just died in India”. And how many years later is it now, and you are asking me this? It’s very difficult. There’s a big difference between Buddhists and present-day Hindu fanatics in India, the Hinduthva and Vajpayee Hindus. But the Hindus and Buddhists have debated a lot, and for a very lowly and completely ignorant student like me, the fact that
there has been so much debate actually proves that they are very close.

[Q] They sometimes had to resort to magical powers to resolve the debates!
[A] Yes, and there are historical facts, like Nalanda was destroyed by the Hindus two or three times. There is some dispute here, but it is true that there has been a lot of destruction by the Hindus, at least twice. Now, there have been many religions that have fought or destroyed each other without any philosophical discussions, but Hindus and Buddhists have challenged each other in two ways. One is physical destruction, like the Hindus destroying Nalanda University and things like that, and of course there’s nothing admirable about that.
But I’m always attracted to the fact that they debated, and that there was something to debate. And the debates were even written down, and many of the texts that we study nowadays, such as the Madhyamakavatara and Pramanavartikka, are byproducts
of their debate. The Hindus are very worthy opponents in this second sense. By contrast, show me one Buddhist text or Indian account where Buddhists and Moslems actually had a philosophical discussion. In this case, the opponent doesn’t believe in that. I think there has been a lot of emotional reaction. For instance, the second destruction of Nalanda was by a Hindu master who worshipped the sun, and he burned Nalanda University by performing magic. But he only did this because when he came to Nalanda University begging food, a mindless young novice set the dogs on him and chased him away, and this really made him angry. But Tulku Jigme Khyentse Rinpoche is saying that’s a very small reason, not the whole story! The Buddha himself studied Hinduism. He had two gurus, and of course we say that he was not happy, but this is like a draldrey again. He studied Hinduism, and found that it is not right, and then he found the middle way, the path beyond extremes. And he found this, in a very strange way, thanks to the extreme view that he had practiced previously.

[xenocross]

Buddhists talk about “not truly existent”, and I think that in this present day, this is like the ace up our sleeves, our trump card. It is what distinguishes the Buddhist view. However, only the Samkhyas, the high Samkhyas, have a view that is so close to the Buddhist view as to be nearly indistinguishable. Not all Hindus have this view. And we should also consider the Jain master Mahavira. Even in the Buddhist sutras, we read that he only has two major differences with the Buddha. He doesn’t have the hair in between his two eyes or an ushnisha, and that’s saying a lot. Jainism is almost all gone now, and we see very little of it in the West, much less than Buddhism. I think this is because in the past, many kings were attracted to Buddhism, especially in far Eastern countries like Japan, China, Korea and of course Tibet. That really helped to maintain Buddhism, and I don’t think that Jainism had that same level of support. It’s such a shame that Jainism isn’t more prevalent, as it’s one of the most wonderful paths. It’s almost fanatically non-violent! And instead we have violent religions growing everywhere.

[Q] What do Hindus think about Buddhist enlightenment? Do they think that Buddhists can reach enlightenment?
[A] I think they believe in the Buddha, because they believe in him as the ninth avatar of Vishnu. So I think that maybe they believe in the second kind of enlightenment that we talked about today. But I don’t think they have the concept of the fourth, the pre-dirty and pre-clean. It’s very interesting. Even in Hinduism, the Buddha is very much associated with compassion. The eighth avatar, the one before the Buddha, was very vicious and killed many people. He caused so much bloodshed, and when he saw the blood, he had so much compassion. The Hindus say this compassion produced the Buddha, the ninth
avatar. I think Hindu scholars would say that Buddhism has the path, but Buddhism is actually Hinduism. This puts us in a very awkward situation! But you know, in his Treasury of the Sublime Vehicle (tekcho dzö), Longchenpa said that every path except lalo, which is a barbaric religion, is a stage on the way to
Buddhahood.

[Q] What makes us different from Hindus, given that Hindus say everything is from Shiva?
[A] This is their job! (Rinpoche turns to Tulku Jigme Khyentse Rinpoche and Tulku Pema Wangyal Rinpoche). I’m kind of a Hindu myself! What do you want to know? The difference between Buddha-nature and atman or Ishvara?
[A] (Tulku Jigme Khyentse Rinpoche) I don’t have an answer to that, but I was just wondering if Rinpoche already answered this when he was explaining the slight difference in the way we are using the vocabulary of permanence, clean, self and bliss.
[A] (Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche) I didn’t even realise that!

(hal 347-349)

BUDDHA-NATURE
MAHAYANA-UTTARATANTRA-SHASTRA
By Arya Maitreya
With Commentary by
DZONGSAR JAMYANG KHYENTSE RINPOCHE
Given at the Centre d’Études de Chanteloube
Dordogne, France
2003-2004
Edited by Alex Trisoglio
© 2007 by Siddhartha’s Intent

[coecoed]

Basically we’re talking about Buddha-nature. We have to be really careful when establishing the idea of this Buddha-nature, otherwise it might end up becoming something like atman or a truly existing soul and so on. That’s why we talk about it as a quality that is the absence of the dirt. I’m telling you to be careful because the Mahayana shastras talk about the qualities of this ‘result of freedom’: the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the 32 major marks, the 80 minor marks, and so on. If you’re not careful, then you might start to think more theistically again. But all these are qualities of the absence of dirt
(hal 3)

Buddha-nature & atman in Hinduism
[Q] On which bhumi does a Bodhisattva emanate more than one form?
[A] The first bhumi. Why do you want to know that?
[Q] Curiosity! I want to ask a question that had to come up sooner or later with this text, I think. I don’t have my texts of the Avadhuta Gita or the Dattatreya with me, but I seem to remember one stanza that goes something like “How can I say
who I am? There was never a time when I was not. I have no name, no form. I am all pervading like the sky. I am immutable. One without another”

[A] Is this Krishna speaking?
[Q] No, this is Dattatreya.
[A] I see. And then?
[Q] I’m wondering if enlightenment is only possible through Buddha-nature, and if Dattatreya isn’t enlightened, then what is he speaking about?
[A] What makes you think that Dattatreya isn’t enlightened?
[Q] Because I think in what we’ve been learning, the Hindu view is not a complete view, and therefore complete enlightenment is not possible.
[A] That’s true.
[Q] Can you resolve this for me please?
[A] That’s very difficult! In the 11th century in Tibet, Atisha Dipamkara cried upon receiving the news that Maitripa had died in India. He said that “There are only two people in the whole world that can differentiate between the Hindus and the Buddhists, and one of them, Maitripa, has just died in India”. And how many years later is it now, and you are asking me this? It’s very difficult. There’s a big difference between Buddhists and present-day Hindu fanatics in India, the Hinduthva and Vajpayee Hindus. But the Hindus and Buddhists have debated a lot, and for a very lowly and completely ignorant student like me, the fact that
there has been so much debate actually proves that they are very close.

[Q] They sometimes had to resort to magical powers to resolve the debates!
[A] Yes, and there are historical facts, like Nalanda was destroyed by the Hindus two or three times. There is some dispute here, but it is true that there has been a lot of destruction by the Hindus, at least twice. Now, there have been many religions that have fought or destroyed each other without any philosophical discussions, but Hindus and Buddhists have challenged each other in two ways. One is physical destruction, like the Hindus destroying Nalanda University and things like that, and of course there’s nothing admirable about that.
But I’m always attracted to the fact that they debated, and that there was something to debate. And the debates were even written down, and many of the texts that we study nowadays, such as the Madhyamakavatara and Pramanavartikka, are byproducts
of their debate. The Hindus are very worthy opponents in this second sense. By contrast, show me one Buddhist text or Indian account where Buddhists and Moslems actually had a philosophical discussion. In this case, the opponent doesn’t believe in that. I think there has been a lot of emotional reaction. For instance, the second destruction of Nalanda was by a Hindu master who worshipped the sun, and he burned Nalanda University by performing magic. But he only did this because when he came to Nalanda University begging food, a mindless young novice set the dogs on him and chased him away, and this really made him angry. But Tulku Jigme Khyentse Rinpoche is saying that’s a very small reason, not the whole story! The Buddha himself studied Hinduism. He had two gurus, and of course we say that he was not happy, but this is like a draldrey again. He studied Hinduism, and found that it is not right, and then he found the middle way, the path beyond extremes. And he found this, in a very strange way, thanks to the extreme view that he had practiced previously.

ha... ha...ha...
bro xeno tulis dong sapa penulisnya?
berarti ia (sudah) Buddha besar dong? atau belum?
koq tahu? itu percakapan sapa atau sapa-sapa?

sahabat umat
coeda,the believer

[coecoed]

Buddhists talk about “not truly existent”, and I think that in this present day, this is like the ace up our sleeves, our trump card. It is what distinguishes the Buddhist view. However, only the Samkhyas, the high Samkhyas, have a view that is so close to the Buddhist view as to be nearly indistinguishable. Not all Hindus have this view. And we should also consider the Jain master Mahavira. Even in the Buddhist sutras, we read that he only has two major differences with the Buddha. He doesn’t have the hair in between his two eyes or an ushnisha, and that’s saying a lot. Jainism is almost all gone now, and we see very little of it in the West, much less than Buddhism. I think this is because in the past, many kings were attracted to Buddhism, especially in far Eastern countries like Japan, China, Korea and of course Tibet. That really helped to maintain Buddhism, and I don’t think that Jainism had that same level of support. It’s such a shame that Jainism isn’t more prevalent, as it’s one of the most wonderful paths. It’s almost fanatically non-violent! And instead we have violent religions growing everywhere.

[Q] What do Hindus think about Buddhist enlightenment? Do they think that Buddhists can reach enlightenment?
[A] I think they believe in the Buddha, because they believe in him as the ninth avatar of Vishnu. So I think that maybe they believe in the second kind of enlightenment that we talked about today. But I don’t think they have the concept of the fourth, the pre-dirty and pre-clean. It’s very interesting. Even in Hinduism, the Buddha is very much associated with compassion. The eighth avatar, the one before the Buddha, was very vicious and killed many people. He caused so much bloodshed, and when he saw the blood, he had so much compassion. The Hindus say this compassion produced the Buddha, the ninth
avatar. I think Hindu scholars would say that Buddhism has the path, but Buddhism is actually Hinduism. This puts us in a very awkward situation! But you know, in his Treasury of the Sublime Vehicle (tekcho dzö), Longchenpa said that every path except lalo, which is a barbaric religion, is a stage on the way to
Buddhahood.

[Q] What makes us different from Hindus, given that Hindus say everything is from Shiva?
[A] This is their job! (Rinpoche turns to Tulku Jigme Khyentse Rinpoche and Tulku Pema Wangyal Rinpoche). I’m kind of a Hindu myself! What do you want to know? The difference between Buddha-nature and atman or Ishvara?
[A] (Tulku Jigme Khyentse Rinpoche) I don’t have an answer to that, but I was just wondering if Rinpoche already answered this when he was explaining the slight difference in the way we are using the vocabulary of permanence, clean, self and bliss.
[A] (Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche) I didn’t even realise that!

(hal 347-349)

BUDDHA-NATURE
MAHAYANA-UTTARATANTRA-SHASTRA
By Arya Maitreya
With Commentary by
DZONGSAR JAMYANG KHYENTSE RINPOCHE
Given at the Centre d’Études de Chanteloube
Dordogne, France
2003-2004
Edited by Alex Trisoglio
© 2007 by Siddhartha’s Intent

i think-i think mah itu i think, bukan kepastian (the real Truth).


sahabatmu
coeda


' saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.'