Sanatana Dharma questions

[riju]

Nameste Devotee,

Hereby I have collected a number of comments for Arhats from Lotus sutra.
This is to help you as you could not go to proper place

page 26
At that time among the great assembly there were voice-hearers, Arhats whose outflows had come to an end, Ajnata Kuandinya and the others, twelve hundred persons. And there were monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen who had conceived a desire to become voice-hearers or pratyekabuddhas. Each of these had this thought: Now for what reason does the World-Honored One so earnestly praise expedient means and state that the Law attained by the Buddha is profound and difficult to understand, that it is very difficult to comprehend the meaning of the words he preaches, that not one of the voice-hearers or pratyekabuddhas can do so? If the Buddha preaches but one doctrine of emancipation, then we too should be able to attain this Law and reach the state of Nirvana. We cannot follow the gist of what he is saying now.


page30


At that time the World-Honored One said to Shariputra, "Three times you have stated your earnest request. How can I do other than preach? Now you must listen attentively and carefully ponder. For your sake I will now analyze and explain the matter."


When he had spoken these words, there were some five thousand monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen in the assembly who immediately rose from their seats, bowed to the Buddha, and withdrew. What was the reason for this? These persons had roots of guilt that were deep and manifold, and in addition they were overbearingly arrogant. What they had not attained they supposed they had attained, what they had not understood they supposed they had understood. And because they had this failing, they did not remain where they were.


The World-Honored One was silent and did not try to detain them.


At this time the Buddha said to Shariputra, "Now this assembly of mine is free of branches and leaves, made up solely of the steadfast and truthful. Shariputra, it is well that these persons of overbearing arrogance have withdrawn. Now listen carefully and I will preach for you."


page33




"Shariputra, if any of my disciples should claim to be an arhat or a pratyekabuddha and yet does not heed or understand that the Buddhas, the Thus Come Ones, simply teach and convert the bodhisattvas, then he is no disciple of mine, he is no arhat or pratyekabuddha.


"Again, Shariputra, if there should be monks or nuns who claim that they already have attained the status of arhat, that this is their last incarnation, that they have reached the final nirvana, and that therefore they have no further intention of seeking anuttara-samyaksambodhi, then you should understand that such as these are all persons of overbearing arrogance. Why do I say this? Because if they are monks who have truly attained the status of arhat, then it would be unthinkable that they should fail to believe this Law. The only exception would be in a time after the Buddha had passed away, when there was no Buddha present in the world. Why is this? Because after the Buddha has passed away it will be difficult to find anyone who can embrace, recite, and understand the meaning of sutras such as this. But if persons at that time encounter another Buddha, then they will attain decisive understanding with regard to this Law.




There are monks and nuns
who behave with overbearing arrogance,
laymen full of self-esteem,
laywomen who are lacking in faith.
Among the four kinds of believers, the likes of these
number five thousand.
They fail to see their own errors,
are heedless and remiss with regard to the precepts,
clinging to their shortcomings, unwilling to change.
But these persons of small wisdom have already left;
the chaff among this assembly
has departed in the face of the Buddha's authority.
These persons were of paltry merit and virtue,
incapable of receiving this Law.
This assembly is now free of branches and leaves,
made up only of those steadfast and truthful.

[devotee]

Namaste riju,

I read your post above. However, I don't find it supporting what you said earlier. Please point out to me if I have missed anything. In the above passage, Lord Buddha doesn't criticise/condemn a true Arhat but those who falsely claim to have attained Arhathood and who claim to have attained Nirvana. See this excerpt from Tripitika where Buddha has been addressed as Arhat :

Tathāgato, bhikkhave, arahaṃ sammāsambuddho rūpassa nibbidā virāgā nirodhā anupādā vimutto sammāsambuddhoti vuccati.

In the above sutta, Lord Buddha has been called as Araham meaning Arhant or Arahat.

In another sutta also He is addressed as Arahat :

itipi so bhagavā arahaṃ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathi satthā devamanussānaṃ buddho bhagavā’ti.

OM

[knowThyEnemy]

Namaste devotee ji,

If you ask me, I would like to say exactly what the Aitreya Upanishad says : "PrajnAnam Brahman". If we don't add anything into it, it means, "Consciousness is Brahman"" and not that Brahman is Conscious.

I agree. It is more correct to say that "Consciousness is Brahman" than vice-versa.


The reason why I used the term "Atyantik Moksh" is because follower12 ji first used it. My knowledge of Sanatan Dharma is still mediocre and I was not aware of this term earlier. I agree however (with follower12 ji), that Self-realization happens in stages. And I agree with you that when Self-realization happens, the person loses all individuality (ego) and becomes one with Brahman.


I also greatly appreciate both you and follower12 ji for taking the time to respond to my comments in detail and with clarity. I am learning a lot.

--------------------------

I also want to explain why I use the term 'Leela' so often as oppossed to 'Sansara' (Samsara). The terms 'Maya' and 'Sansara' have negative connotations to them, even though the terms themselves are correct. People complain about how "there is so much suffering and pain in this Sansara", and the learnt people respond "You are drowned in ignorance and hypnotized by Maya and that's why you suffer". We listen to all this and get the idea that this whole world is a bad thing going on. (The Buddhists seem to have such mentality. They even see Brahman as "emptiness".)

Contrast this with 'Leela'. Leela means play, and the term has positive connotations to it. When a child plays hide-and-seek, s/he does it because s/he is happy. When we see the child play we get the idea that there is something good going on.


This world too is something good going on. When scriptures say things like "Consciousness is Brahman", or give an impression of the Fullness (instead of emptiness) of Brahman, or state that "He is all Bliss", it clearly gives the impression of something good. Hence, just as a playing child indicates joy and goodness, so does Brahman's (Ishvara's) functioning of this world. The term Leela fully captures (and expresses) this goodness and joy.
-------------------------


Now please allow me to ask you a question since you are much more learnt (in theoretical Hinduism) than I am. I once watched one of Upanishad Ganga's episode (link below) where Sri Krishn said "The Dharma for which Abhimanyu died, that Dharma is immortal", and "To live for Dharma and to die for Dharma, that is the very purpose of human life", and "The one who fulfilled the very purpose of human life, why grieve over his death."


What is your take on Dharma? How important is it? What is more important for a human being- seeking Mukti or to live (and die) by dharma?

Pranam

[follower12]

Namaste Everybody,

I think we have good discussion on the topic & have quite drifted from it. This thread could be an exception but no problem, till it benefits my knowledge & everyone else too. Most of my posts contain my opinion & the knowledge I accumulated from not-so-sorted Swaddhyaya. So, I couldn't quote exact references. Please remind me if any of my post sounds bad or too opinionated. I will try in every way to maintain decoram of HDF and I am so sorry that I didn't learn my lesson of religion thoroughly before going towards adhyatm. But I can assure everyone that most things will come out to be correct & also I will start quoting references soon after studying more. Till then, please support my existence here.

Namaste Riju ji,

riju ji wrote: These Arhats are like chaff of rice and good that they have left this gathering.Guatam has used words meaning REJECTION for arhats at THREE different places in these pages.

The 'chaff of rice' simply denotes the uselessness of a practice done mindlessly. If done with understanding, same could give better results. "Rejection" of a living being & that too by Gautama Buddha, still doubtful. Not at least till Dharms existed. I am not refusing your opinion or something that is mentioned in Bauddha literature but really, there is no copyright law at that time & to take them as words of Lord Buddha becomes debatable (if such is the state of actual scripture). I don't know what people compiled out of words of Bhagwan Buddha. It doesn't matter what is written in scriptures if it does not stand with Dharm, Morality & Absolute humility towards everyone. Whole world knows Buddha is paragon of all best virtues.

As per Lotus sutra ... Existence came out of Emptiness to flower through the process of CREATION AND WISDOM.
and to go back into emptiness (moksh) is of no sense without doing this work.

Forgive me, I am not able to get it. (I am not very good in communicative English, still learning). If you could explain, what does 'this work' refer to?

Before I elaborate, I wish to clear who Buddha is ?

Buddha is an adjective, not a noun. This means that Buddha is a quality or specific state. If you attain that state, you will also be called as Buddha.
In adhyatm,
the subtle body of antahkaran with which we take decision is called 'Buddhi' or Intellect.

The human with weak intellect is refered by commoners as 'Buddhu.'

A human with powerful developed intellect is called 'Buddhimaan'. A Buddhimaan person has Maan (pride) for his highly developed buddhi. But his buddhi is also limited. People perfect in one or more arts are buddhimaan.

A human who has reached the limit of development of Buddhi i.e., 100% buddhi is called 'Buddha'. He is wisest among wisest people & thus referred as God. Buddha generally doesn't gets the glimpse of soul in the respective birth but it follows in next births.
A human who achieves this whole 100% development of buddhi all on his own efforts. he is called 'SwayamBuddha.' A swayambuddha is well endowed with Atma Darshan _ Self realization. A swayam buddha does not have a guru in his birth but in past births, he always have gurus.

This universe is Maya /Mithya or ...etc........How can we agree when every moments it effects us.

Universe is a relative reality. It is no Absolute reality. We feel pain and happiness because we live in relative reality. Without reaching absolute state, the pain cannot be undone. he effect of every moment is on bahyakaran(body, speech,senses) & antahkaran(mind, ego,intellect, chitta) with which our conscious remains tanmayakar all the time. he soul who is different & separate from it does not feel it. To be one with soul can impart that state to us. Lord Krishna explained it to Arjun through his Vishwaswaroop Drashana where he showed how whole world keep on dissolving into nothingness (no, it does not end but whatever new comes goes into the nothingness & thus didnot exist permanently). The impermanence of worldly matter makes it mithya.

I get headache but it disappears after few hours. It is temporary. But is it not real as it can be felt? Yes, it is real from relative point of view (Vyavhaar Nyaya) only. Relative point of view means that view which does not comes from real. Only the view that comes from permanent entity can be called as Real point of view(Nishchaya Nyaya). Soul is the only living permanent element. The pain does not exist for soul as it cannot even touch it. So, when I say, " I felt pain." What does it mean? Who is that who is feeling it? The answer is ego. Ego suffers pain, sorrow, happiness, birth and death.We areassociated to ego. When this association is broken & done with Soul, the real viewpoint comes out automatically.

This is absolutely true on Meditation Path. Alas! the meditation path automatically breaks upon the dawn of Kaliyug. Only very exceptional beings could achieve what had been written in scriptures. But, still the pran of a Kaliyugi being (that we all & everybody out there are, I think we need to accept the reality) cannot leave through Brahmarandhra. This is law, the spiritual forces acting on our Earth changes (reduces) & no Moksha can happen from here in Kaliyuga & Ghorkaliyuga.

Pranaam

[follower12]

Namaste Knowthyenemy,

First of all, very nice reflection & awesome question. I will express my views on it but things may differ from our viewpoints. So, please raise the questions for my clarity & understanding.

Originally posted by knowthyenemy:
Let's say you attain self realization and later on also attain Atyantik Moksh, which means that your ego is completely vanished and you are now one with Brahman.

I am one with Brahman but without complete destruction of Ego. The ego present within is now a dead one.It rises occasionally but remain dead mostly. Self realization & that too with presence of Ego, how is it possible? It is possible on Akram Marg which is described as Akramagat Marg in Jain literatures & as Vihangika Marg in Vedanta.

The Akram path is not discussed much because of its rarity. It opens up once every 10 lacs years. Generally, it open naturally for those who have tried everything and are still stuck here. It is the punya karma of our Saints & householders' prayers that due to their immense effort toward Moksha (which is blocked permanently in Kalyug), nature unfolded this path through Pujya Dadashri of Gujrat. He saw infinite birth he had and told that he himself had been trying to get Moksh for several thousands of births. And what he did not expect what he achieved. He was just expecting a single ray of light of soul but The Lord of 14 Lokas manifested inside him. When people used to ask about the Lord inside him, he simply told them, " The Lord within me & you is same, the difference is that it has fully manifested inside me while he is yet to manifest in you."

The Gyan given by him was same as that given by Lord Krishna to Arjun in the battlefield of Kurukshetra. Lord Krishna told hold whole Bhagwad Gita but at last with his special siddhi (spiritual powers), he 'gave' the realization of soul to Arjun & Arjun became Akarta right in the battlefield. He killed millions but didn't bind even a single karma & attained Mokshgati. A normal human would get Narakgati if he kills even 10 humans.

Coming back to main part, a person who attains self realization through Akram Marg is neither absolutely one with brahm (at relative state) nor has ego destructed completely. The benefit is that he does not binds any paap karma if remains within Agyas of Bestower. So, the journey starts shortening. For most such self realized people, 2 or 3 births are left before Atyantik Moksh. Those who still want to enjoy world (unknowingly or knowingly due to the presence of desries) will take maximum 15 births. Till then, they are not one with Brahm in Absolute form.

But guess what? Samsara (other people and their egos) would still be in existence and Brahman would still be doing leela in this samsara. Now since you and Brahman are one and the same, you (Brahman) are the one would still be present in this samsara and be doing your leela. So how exactly would you have freed yourself from the birth-death cycle?

Actually, the concept of doer is something hat creates difference between Shrimad Bhagwad Gita & other Hindu scriptures. The reason for not including doership of Brahm in Gita is to put reality as it is. The reason behind putting doership of Brahm in other scriptures is to push people through evolution/purification of ego & surrender to auspicious activities.

If it is said so openly that no one is doer, half will go mad due to the liberty they would get & it will not take minutes to establish adharm. So, it has been secretly coded in Gita. In Gita also, doership of ego has been said & all paths of yoga mentioned in it also emphasize on doership only. But if you read it between the lines, you will find a twist. Krishna Bhagwan has given both relative & real viewpoints. Where he ask Arjun to act as a doer/karta, it is relative & where he say no one does anything in this world, it is real viewpoint.

So, the truth (which could be initially hard to accept) is that Brahm is a seer, knower & abode of permanent bliss, he is not different, he is your own soul. Brahm is not a doer.
Agar karta hua, to bhogta banna parta h. - Pujya Dadashri

Brahm is karta of Gyan only. Not anything else. Samsara will remain in existence. Leela happens on its own with help of nature's laws. It has existed since infinity & will exist till infinity. There are infinite Brahma tattva in form of souls and are all alike. They are neither born out of a single Brahma as there is no birth or death of soul nor will merge in one after Moksha. Lord Brahma dev is different as compared to Brahma tattva. Lord Brahma dev is dev in devgati. While Brahma tattva is soul or chetan tattva. After Moksh, each soul exist separately in Siddhakshetra as Siddha Bhagwaan in permanent infinite bliss & knowledge.

So after my Moksh or Moksh of somebody else, the Samsara will not stop. It will function using same laws as it is now. Leela will continue even then. Once we achieve Moksh, we get freed from Birth -death but Samsara exists as remaining also need Moksha.

.......that the freed soul would become part of the Nirguna. But believing such a thing would be conjecture.

Brahm is Nirguna from Vyavhar Nyaya(relative) & Saguna from Nishchaya Nyaya(real). When we compare Brahm to world then it has none of the guna that world has. World has all temporary guna while all guna of Brahm are permanent in nature. Those guna of world which are permanent are non-living while Brahm is living tattva. So, it is Nirguna when compared with world or relative reality.
When we see the Nishchaya Nyaya or Real viewpoint, we find that Brahma has infinite guna, infinite powers which are present in any of the worldly thing. The presence of infinite gunas in Braaahm makes it Saguna. Otherwise, how Brahm can be called Nirgun when even the least worthy thing of world has its own guna or durguna. So, Brahm is Saguna it own form while Nirguna when compared with attributes of Samsara.

In fact, you might already have attained Atyantik Moksh and might be present in this world as a manifestation of none else but Brahman doing the Leela .

Doing the leela, that would be more like a burden. Even if one gives me such a post, I would simply apologize & ask him to search anyone else. What fun is there in leela? Everything sum upto give a big zero.

Do you have any reason to believe that this is not the case? If it is the case, what should your goal in life be? Should it be 'Moksh' again, after you have already attained it?

I think I have tried to some extent to answer that with the possible humility on my part.

Pranaam

[follower12]

Namaste again to everyone,

Originally posted by riju ji:
There are monks and nuns
who behave with overbearing arrogance,
laymen full of self-esteem,
laywomen who are lacking in faith.
Among the four kinds of believers, the likes of these
number five thousand.
They fail to see their own errors,
are heedless and remiss with regard to the precepts,
clinging to their shortcomings, unwilling to change.
But these persons of small wisdom have already left;
the chaff among this assembly
has departed in the face of the Buddha's authority.
These persons were of paltry merit and virtue,
incapable of receiving this Law.
This assembly is now free of branches and leaves,
made up only of those steadfast and truthful.

Well, riju ji, you could have posted it earlier. Now it becomes all more clear. The scripture is nowhere wrong. You can see it. But the interpretation was somewhere lacking.

First, these are not words of Buddha Bhagwan himself but another person narrating the assembly.
Though they do not indicate absolute humility which Lord Buddha had (another indication that it was written by follower with his perception & observations, not by Bhagwan himself but at least he had this much respect for Buddha Bhagwan that he put it in Narrative style rather than saying what he wished in the name of God as :" I, Lord Buddha declare that .......).

Second, in worldly view, these words could be apt for such people who live with arrogance because they might have practiced some ritual or done meditation for few years. The type of people described in the text appears to have missed the main cause for which they got initiated in their corresponding system, so they were criticized.

Last, a point of history can be of great help while understanding the mindset of people who wrote pali texts. After Lord Buddha attained Mahaparinirvana, the followers followed principles wholeheartedly for quite a long time. Simultaneously, in other regions of India, the followers count of Buddhism started rising because of loads of unnecessary karm-kands (rites rituals) prescribed by particular groups. This fueled more energy into Buddhist movement in India. But it is said, when a Sangh grows & spreads to a larger region, impurities start adding. That is exactly what happened. The Buddhist monks & nuns (not all, only influential ones....keeping their names anonymous) who followed principles as laid by Buddha Bhagwan strictly started criticizing all other customs & followers of religions of India. This time coincides with several philosophical revolution & the four Bauddha conferences where all scriptures were written. Believe me, if you go through detailed History of it, you will find it excessively politicized. So, only selective part of scripture is useful. The above part posted by riju can be definitely from a noble scripture but do you think, it has got any religious or spiritual value associates to it except criticism of those who failed?

From Devotee :
In the above passage, Lord Buddha doesn't criticise/condemn a true Arhat but those who falsely claim to have attained Arhathood and who claim to have attained Nirvana.

Very true except that they do not appear to be words of Lord Buddha.

[riju]

Namaste riju,

I read your post above. However, I don't find it supporting what you said earlier. Please point out to me if I have missed anything. In the above passage, Lord Buddha doesn't criticise/condemn a true Arhat but those who falsely claim to have attained Arhathood and who claim to have attained Nirvana. See this excerpt from Tripitika where Buddha has been addressed as Arhat :

Tathāgato, bhikkhave, arahaṃ sammāsambuddho rūpassa nibbidā virāgā nirodhā anupādā vimutto sammāsambuddhoti vuccati.

In the above sutta, Lord Buddha has been called as Araham meaning Arhant or Arahat.

In another sutta also He is addressed as Arahat :

itipi so bhagavā arahaṃ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathi satthā devamanussānaṃ buddho bhagavā’ti.

OM

Namaste Devotee
I hope this helps


Arhat......

Followers of Sanatana dharam understood wrongly that Arhat (freedom from rebirth and death)
is the highest achievement in the times when Guatam Buddha was in physical life.


While Guatam Buddha knew that Arhat is freedom from desires and emotions and not freedom
from rebirth and death. While Moksh is freedom from rebirth and death.


Moksh is the path of devotees. Arhat is an important stage to climb higher to Buddhahood.


Unfortunately at the time of Guatam Buddha Sanatan dharam was very popular with an aim
that Arhat is getting freedom from rebirth and death and by doing this one merges back
in Brahmana the source of his birth.All past powerful rishis understood and
taught this meaning to their disciples.


Guatam Buddha solved this problem by saying that he knows the fastest and easy method to
Arhatship. Thereby he captured many young minds, started camps and taught vipassana and
Awareness meditations. These meditations methods were fast and easy comparably but they made
the persons free from desires and emotions. AND MANY SUCCEEDED IN BECOMING ARHATS.


After a long time when many arhats were ready, he set a stage at mount Gridhrakutir (now
known as eagle peak) and called all the arhats.


There he gave them the meaning of Arhat as one who has not to seek aim of freedom from rebirth.
He also explained to them that the reason of his misleading them by going along with Sanatana
prevalent thinking of Arhat.


He further explained that we are all one.So there is no use of going to MOksh. We are neither
born nor we die. It is all BRAHAMANA. We have come here to create as a part of Brahamana.
Many arhats got disturbed . Guatam was changing their lifelong understanding of meaning of arhat. SO THEY LEFT. And Guatam Buddha said that they were never TRUE ARHATS.


That is how Mahayana yatra started. The process was to create a DEEP DESIRE to help others
on the same path. He adviced that by sharing compassion (sambhogkaya) and by creating
(nirmankaya) and by strengthening the natural laws of creation (dharamkaya),.........
THEY WILL EXPAND AND WILL BE ON THE WAY TO BRAHAMANA (their original home). THEY will become a
BUDDHA on the way.

[devotee]

Namaste KTE,

Now please allow me to ask you a question since you are much more learnt (in theoretical Hinduism) than I am. I once watched one of Upanishad Ganga's episode (link below) where Sri Krishn said "The Dharma for which Abhimanyu died, that Dharma is immortal", and "To live for Dharma and to die for Dharma, that is the very purpose of human life", and "The one who fulfilled the very purpose of human life, why grieve over his death."

What is your take on Dharma? How important is it? What is more important for a human being- seeking Mukti or to live (and die) by dharma?

First of all I would say that such TV stories are made for common masses and the writer may have his own interpretation of BG. So, we cannot take it as any authority. As far as Dharma is concerned :

a) Bhagwad Gita explains very well on this issue. Dharma of every person is different depending upon what role he is playing in the world. The only condition is that while playing his role he should not be attached to his role and result thereof. Lord Krishna advises that one should act as per his duty. The four VarnAshram, the time and place decide the duty of any person. If I am in army, my duty is to save my country even by killing enemies of my country. In that case, even a grave act of killing another human won't affect me personally. If we perform every action for the sake of God, these actions won't bind us.

b) However, while indulging in work, we should not forget our real aim in life ... i.e. to realise our True Nature. For realising our True Nature, we have to attain Self-realisation and for that we need to study scriptures / learn under the guidance of a Self-realised Guru and lead a life as guided by Guru.

OM

[devotee]

Namaste riju,

Arhat......

Followers of Sanatana dharam understood wrongly that Arhat (freedom from rebirth and death)
is the highest achievement in the times when Guatam Buddha was in physical life.

This claim has no foundation. I have not found the term Ärhat" anywhere in Sanatan Dharma scriptures.

While Guatam Buddha knew that Arhat is freedom from desires and emotions and not freedom
from rebirth and death. While Moksh is freedom from rebirth and death.

Can you quote from any scriptures how you are defining the terms Ärhat"like the one you did above "?

Moksh is the path of devotees. Arhat is an important stage to climb higher to Buddhahood.

This statement doesn't make any sense. How Moksha is a path of devotees ?

Unfortunately at the time of Guatam Buddha Sanatan dharam was very popular with an aim
that Arhat is getting freedom from rebirth and death and by doing this one merges back
in Brahmana the source of his birth.All past powerful rishis understood and
taught this meaning to their disciples.

Any proof for claiming so ?

Guatam Buddha solved this problem by saying that he knows the fastest and easy method to
Arhatship. Thereby he captured many young minds, started camps and taught vipassana and
Awareness meditations. These meditations methods were fast and easy comparably but they made
the persons free from desires and emotions. AND MANY SUCCEEDED IN BECOMING ARHATS.

Please quote scriptures to substantiate your views. It doesn't appear to make any sense.

After a long time when many arhats were ready, he set a stage at mount Gridhrakutir (now
known as eagle peak) and called all the arhats.

This doesn't appear to be the case !

There he gave them the meaning of Arhat as one who has not to seek aim of freedom from rebirth.
He also explained to them that the reason of his misleading them by going along with Sanatana
prevalent thinking of Arhat.

Where did he give the meaning of Arhat ? Can you please quote ?

He further explained that we are all one.So there is no use of going to MOksh.

Quite interesting ! Can you quote Buddha saying that there is no us going to Moksha ?

We are neither born nor we die. It is all BRAHAMANA. We have come here to create as a part of Brahamana.
Many arhats got disturbed . Guatam was changing their lifelong understanding of meaning of arhat. SO THEY LEFT. And Guatam Buddha said that they were never TRUE ARHATS.

Where did you get all this ? This appears to be nowhere in Lotus Sutras.

OM

[riju]

Namaste riju,



This claim has no foundation. I have not found the term Ärhat" anywhere in Sanatan Dharma scriptures.



Can you quote from any scriptures how you are defining the terms Ärhat"like the one you did above "?



This statement doesn't make any sense. How Moksha is a path of devotees ?



Any proof for claiming so ?



Please quote scriptures to substantiate your views. It doesn't appear to make any sense.



This doesn't appear to be the case !



Where did he give the meaning of Arhat ? Can you please quote ?



Quite interesting ! Can you quote Buddha saying that there is no us going to Moksha ?



Where did you get all this ? This appears to be nowhere in Lotus Sutras.

OM

I was disturbed about and wanted to learn about sanatana dharma. So I put up the questions and started the thread.
I have got my answers. You already have answers.
Thanks form my heart.