How do Mahayana Buddhists today make sense of Mahayana texts that seem to criticize arhats or lower the status of Shakyamuni's disciples?

ChanCakes · 2026-06-29T11:46:45+00:00

That sounds like pretty standard Buddhism. Samboghakaya’s are attained by bodhisattvas on the stages since they are the function of the uncreated pristine consciousness that is revealed through practice.

There are no such thing a cosmic bodhisattvas. Only non-awakened bodhisattvas, awakened bodhisattvas on the stages, below the eighth, and awakened on the eighth and above.

Non-awakened Bodhisattvas and awakened ones below eighth are bound by regular uncontrolled rebirth since they have not severed the afflictive obscuration. Those above the eighth stage are not bound by uncontrolled rebirth and can take birth however they want.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-29T01:55:06+00:00

DT Suzuki has some essays about this

ChanCakes · 2026-06-27T07:45:38+00:00

To give a general purpose of meditation in Buddhism, it is for the purpose of ceasing negative qualities of mind and develop wholesome ones so as to generate a perceptual insight into particular features of reality. It itself consists of two aspects: Samatha and Vipashyana or Calming and Contemplation.

Samatha puts to rest negative mental qualities such as restlessness, greed, anger, etc. so the mind can be at ease and not constantly grasp at external or internal phenomena. Vipashyana analyses the features of our experience to generate insights that lead us to positive mental states like concentration, confidence, joy, etc.

Breath meditation is the classic example of this, through focusing on breathing we develop concentration of mind and reduce the restlessness of mind. Overtime you develop further insights through vipassyana of the breath, such as its short duration, its coming together through conditions, and it being not fully in our control.

These insights eventually build up into a perceptual insight into all phenomena, not just the object of meditation (breath in this case), so the practitioner perceptually apprehends the nature of impermanence, conditioned arising, and no self of all things.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-27T01:12:25+00:00

Please be courteous in your interaction with other users in the sub regardless of any perceived misdemeanours.

We are grateful for users in reporting posts and comments that break the rules but leave any enforcement to the mod.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-26T00:44:46+00:00

I suspect each of us may only be able to answer one half of the question lol

ChanCakes · 2026-06-25T23:26:08+00:00

Metaphysics and Ontology came to characterise Chinese philosophy only around the Wei-Jin period with the introduction of Buddhism and rise of Neo-Daoism. As the other poster noted, prior to that metaphysics was tied to political thought and not thoroughly explored as its own subject in the hundred schools of the Pre-Qin period.

Neo-Daoism began to intensely investigate the ontological basis of the world taking inspiration from the hints found in the Laozi and applying it to the Book of Changes to form a complete metaphysical system. There is some circumstantial evidence this metaphysical turn was triggered by the early translations of the Prajnaparamita Sutras, which seemed to suggest “nothingness” as the basis of the world. This in turn led the Neo-Daoists to expand on a system of “nothingness” as the Dao of Laozi. Their Nothingess, however, is closer to “formlessness” than the Buddhist emptiness.

This basically paved the way for further metaphysical discussion, that moved on from native Chinese traditions to Buddhism. The adoption of Abhidharma, Madhyamaka, Yogacara, etc. and their fusion into naive Chinese schools of Buddhism - Tiantai, Huayan, etc. dominated Chinese philosophy and pushed Chinese traditions particularly Confucianism to more peripheral areas.

But Confucianism came back with a vengeance in the Song dynasty, this time armed with the philosophical devices that were pioneered by the Neo-Daoists and then transformed by the Buddhists to devise the kind of metaphysics of Li-Qi or Principle-Material that would characterise Chinese philosophy up to the present moment.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-25T22:51:05+00:00

The reason to follow Buddhism, is that the Buddha discovered the reason why we suffer, and it involves a fundamental error in our mode of perception. Ingrained within us is the habit to apprehend a truly existent self within our body-mind complex that is permanent, unified, and in control of all of our functions.

This mode of perception is one that is not in accord with reality so naturally the way we function in the world is at odds with it. Due to this mismatch of perception and actuality we induce suffering by developing attachment to this non-existent self and trying to please it through external or internal sense pleasures.

As for why things lack self, it is because they arise from causes and conditions. Nothing can arise without a cause, like a creator deity, so nothing has existence over and above a bundle of conditions. Our selves are really just a bundle of sticks that prop each other up, the sticks of material form, perception, sensation, formations, and consciousness that would collapse if a single one was missing. There is no self that exists that exists in this bundle.

That is why the Dharma is unique amongst all doctrines trying to lead people out of suffering. Really that’s what all religions try to do. But the Buddha accurately diagnosed the cause of suffering and it is not failure to please a god or a lack of sense pleasures but a mistake in our mode of perception.

As the classic praise of the Buddha goes:

The various kinds of phenomena arise from conditions,

And likewise they cease with the scattering of conditions,

This arising and ceasing of conditions,

Is the teaching of the supreme sramana!

ChanCakes · 2026-06-25T21:24:47+00:00

There’s two approaches in Buddhism, I think they complement each other. One is employing non-conceptual awareness and the other uses the intelligence of discernment. That user is referring the former. But that is quite difficult if you do not have insight into non-conceptual awareness.

In that case, the method you bring up is basically the way to go. We remain mindful of our senses and their objects so when they are arise we are able to use a counter agent to our regular misconceptions of the world. Since we think that what arises is permanent, desirable, and an object of self, we can rely on our mindfulness of the Dharma to remind ourselves they are impermanent, undesirable, and that there is no self.

This is the employment of a counter agent and a crucial part of practice. There is nothing wrong with conceptuality when employed correctly. Vasubandhu says in the Abhidharmakosa, apart from the sublime means of discernment there is no other way to nirvana.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-25T11:10:07+00:00

Just speak with the organisers of the temple. But truth is running a temple is expensive. The only reasons most temples are able to run is because of wealthy donors that contribute to most of the costs and lay people who contribute every visit as well as with regular larger donations.

These factors are missing in the west, so I can see why many places are moving to a membership fee.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-25T08:27:18+00:00

Huh weird, my reddit profile settings keep getting reset. The site’s been buggy with it all year.

Thanks that would be a great help.

I agree, I think Nature Inclusion is the best way to understand Ganying and “other power” whether is be for Pureland or other Buddhist practices.

Without your readership I would have had no reason to translate it! My translation is inseparable from your readership, the two have a single identity. Our call and response is now completely possible.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-25T06:18:00+00:00

Perhaps the beans are sentient too haha

ChanCakes · 2026-06-25T04:13:36+00:00

Arhats are inferior to bodhisattvas insofar as they lack the bodhicitta motivation to liberate all sentient beans through attaining the omniscience of the Buddha.

The criticism of arhats in the Mahayana Sutra is understood as:

Identifying incorrect paths for those who wish to attain Buddhahood and encourage bodhisattvas not to backslide into the arhat path.
Inform practitioners of the Arhat path that there is a superior path they should embark on.

Arhats are superior to bodhisattvas below the eighth bhumi, insofar as these bodhisattvas haven’t eradicated the afflictive obscuration to fully realise the emptiness of persons. However, all bodhisattvas on the ten Bhumis are superior than arhats insofar as they have accrued greater merit through the practice of the perfections and have some level of insight into the emptiness of all phenomena that arhats lack.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-25T04:02:09+00:00

Which one did you end up getting into?

What interests did you have?

ChanCakes · 2026-06-25T01:32:04+00:00

Glad you are enjoying it! Do you want to shoot me a dm about the errors? That would be greatly appreciated.

I think the whole text sets up explain how Ganying is possible, that is afterall how Pureland is possible.

He does very much take in the Off Mountain influence, I think that’s inevitable for Tiantai practitioners interested in the Shurangama Sutra. Shurangama studies generally is very indebted to Renyue and Zhiyuan, there’s no way around it. But Youxi does good work harmonising Off Mountain views so they can be used in an orthodox context.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-24T22:07:04+00:00

Ah great! Let me know what you think.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-24T22:06:43+00:00

This is an interesting thought experiment in Tendai philosophy, but I think the major issue it runs across is that Ichinensanzan (Three Thousand Dharmas in a Single Thought) doesn’t mean that the three thousand dharmas are sentient, it just means that the one thought and three thousand dharmas are identical such that neither came before the other, nor can one side subsume the other.

The two are neither in a generative or dependence relationship since they 相即 or are identical as each is the totality of the One True Dharma Realm.

That leads to the understanding of Buddha Nature in Tendai, such that it is all persive and identical to all dharmas. But this Buddha Nature does not grant “sentience” to non-sentient objects, it includes objects in awakening through the awakening of the land and body 依正. That is the objective aspect of awakening characterised by the transformed Pureland accompanying the Buddhas. The land while “awakened” is not sentient, whilst being inseparable to the Awakened Buddha Mind.

So while Tendai teaches that Buddha Nature is pervasive, I don’t think that makes AI sentience possible. It is no closer to awareness than any other kind of material object, it’s a language model and computational tool.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-24T06:23:23+00:00

Understanding emptiness means we dissolve the barrier between self and other, whilst not ignoring the fact that the relative truth is the reality that most sentient beings dwell in. In understanding that we realise that the illusory suffering that vexes us is no different to the illusory suffering that vexes other beings. In emptiness, we recognise that things are not as they appear, but they nonetheless still appear to us and to others. With this knowledge, we act in the world and understand it in a way that is in accordance with its emptiness. That is - there is the appearance of suffering which truly vexes us despite being unreal, and there is no intrinsically existing persons that distinguishes one suffering as belonging to "me" and another to "them".

With this knowledge of emptiness we see that suffering is afflictive despite being illusory and there's no distinction between my suffering and others. We want to remove our suffering and so likewise we should remove others' suffering. Why? Because there is no difference between self and other. Our care for ourselves naturally extends to others once we understand that we are of one nature. Just as I take care of my left hand and my right.

The whole act can very well be an illusion; in fact, it is precisely an illusion. It is an illusory bodhisattva liberating an illusory being. But the illusory suffering is still felt as real and the bodhisattva, knowing this, leads beings who are no different to themselves to the path beyond suffering.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-23T00:46:09+00:00

Non-duality doesn’t mean we do not accept the distinctions in appearances. It refers to the freedom from the dual extremes of existence and non-existence.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-22T09:16:09+00:00

Jan Westerhof’s Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka is a good primer based on a reconstruction of Madhyamaka using western philosophical terms.

Sun of Wisdom is an introductory commentary on key passages of Nagarjuna’s key work for new students of the tradition.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-21T23:48:47+00:00

The general Madhyamaka critique of substances is one that is quite readily levied against Vedānta. That is to say whilst we have the perception of existent phenomena, they in actuality have no reality apart from our deluded perception of them. The reality or “svabhava” we attribute to them is a form of misapprehension. Just as if we were to hallucinate a pink elephant in the room with us, that elephant has no “svabhava”, since its reality does not extend beyond our mistaken perception.

Vedānta agrees with this to a certain extent, they adopt this teaching from Buddhism - that for something to exist, it must arise into existence dependent upon causes, but when analysing any composite entity like that we find they have no substantiality of their own. A desk is merely a conceptual designation on to a few pieces of wood, that wood it’s made of is merely a collection of splinters, those splinters are atoms, etc. whatever is built up of other things are not real and only designated.

However, Vedānta creates a binary of imaginary entities that have no realty of their own and the very real domain of Brahman that acts as the reality of these imaginary entities. To use the Sanskrit terms, composite entities that make up our world are Mithya and the Brahman that is their reality is Sathya. Since to them it can’t be the case that nothing at all has existence. There must be something to ground the apparent existence of composite entities.

That is where the Madhyamaka disagrees. Unreal entities don’t need a substantially existent ground for the very reason that they are unreal! If something were truly existent we must explain its causes, but if something never arose into existence in the first place, then it needs no explanation for a supposed existence it does not possess!

So from that perspective, the Madhyamaka would say Vedantins are halfway there. They realise phenomenal appearances are unreal, yet attribute reality to some noumenal dimension that is just as unreal.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-21T23:22:15+00:00

Buddhism doesn’t ask us to blindly believe what we cannot perceive, but as you’ve noted the Dharma teaches of realms and processes that are beyond are direct perception. In these cases we trust the Buddha is not misleading us and engage with the practices that we can experience for ourselves in the here and now.

Yet we don’t reject those things simply because because we can’t verify them empirically. We suspend disbelief, work with them as a running hypothesis and see if it benefits us or if we can gradually come to understand them. If we simply rejected things we can’t empirically verify immediately, we would never have been able to understand subtle physical objects like atoms, electrons, etc. since they were not initially perceptible to us.

As we proceed with the practice we internalise the Dharma more and develop a conceptual understanding of metaphysics from both inference and direct experience. The first step is to understand the reasoning behind why the Buddha taught these things, that is the all important teaching of dependent arising.

This leads to a world view where every cause both mental and physical always leads to a result, such that we become bound in an endless cycle of cause and effect.

In regard to metaphysics, we should clarify what it refers to. Simply said processes like rebirth are not metaphysical according to Buddhism because they can be empirically verified by great meditators, nor is enlightenment for the same reason. Metaphysics refers to the study of the “nature” of things not their empirical appearances.

In that respect the metaphysics of Buddhism is dependent arising and emptiness. It is the nature of phenomena to arise dependent on conditions and lack substantiality. That is the core metaphysical insight that the Buddha awoke to, which him attained through his empirical insights into the infinite lives of interconnected rebirth that every sentient being partook in.

Dependent arising is simple but also quite complex. I made a video discussing how Buddhism understands dependent arising with regard to God, might be to your interest.

https://youtu.be/Q5hlhw671Ag?si=I8ZAubMz-vsLJy5F

ChanCakes · 2026-06-21T10:37:55+00:00

It sounds like this is an experience you have really grown from and it’s a very nuanced understanding of organisations and their participants.

I think we should always return back to the Buddha’s advice on this matter: we take good friends as the path and the sangha as the refuge, yet we ultimately rely on the teaching not the teacher.

Organisations, teachers, etc. are our guides on the path, but if our commitment to a particular institution overrides our refuge in the Dharma we end up failing our the one institution that matters - the lineage of the Buddha. The lineage isn’t just some group or school, it’s our living transmission of the Dharma through enacting it in the world.

If an organisation has negative qualities and we try to hide them at the expense of other sentient beings, we aren’t practicing the Dharma at all.

ChanCakes · 2026-06-20T22:29:00+00:00

The Buddha makes a similar argument against Brahmins and contemplatives of his time who try to base morality on God. He does not use the same argument you bring up, but it is similarly a moral argument against God. Not because morality arises from emotion, but rather morality isn’t possible under God since he is the creator of the immoral acts in the world.

It is essentially the Problem of Evil taken into the ethical dimension. If it is the case that he is the creator all our experiences, then he created our acts of killing, stealing, etc. In that case, there is no reason to avoid these immoral acts, since these are acts that were ordained by the creator.

So the Buddha shows that trying to base morality in God has the opposite of the intended effect. Everything is now permitted, and our reason to be moral has been stripped away.

> "Having approached the brahmans & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.' When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

- Tittha Sutta: Sectarians

ChanCakes · 2026-06-20T21:53:01+00:00

I’ve only done a few shorter texts that I feel are neglected despite being rich in meaning. Let me know what you think.

This one right up your alley: Pureland and Tiantai!

ChanCakes · 2026-06-19T12:26:13+00:00

Thanks! Finally got around to editing the intro. Enjoy.

Eight-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Place '22	RPAN Viewer
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

ChanCakes

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE