Astus wrote:Also note that like in the case of Seung Sahn, mantras are only used as objects for meditation without any extra value, unlike in tantric teachings where mantras have a meaning.
Astus wrote:Maitreya is the next buddha to turn the wheel of Dharma after a period of no Dharma. But while in early Buddhism the buddhas were primarily identified as the initiators of the teaching, later it stopped being the main criterion, therefore there can be infinite buddhas even at the same place.
Namdrol wrote:The ancient Chan masters are making the argument than the realization of emptiness is sufficient and there is not much reason to place a lot of emphasis on the path of cultivation (bhumis 1-10). Once in possession of the Gnosis of the path, that is the main point, and that is Buddhahood.
“All sentient beings have the Buddha-nature, but because it is covered over by defilements, they do not know and do not see it.” (Daniepan jing [Mahaparinirvana Sutra], fascicle 7)
“The thus-so Buddha-nature can only be known by a Buddha.” (Daniepan jing [Mahaparinirvana Sutra], fascicle 7)
“The anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (supreme, correct enlightenment/awareness) is achieved due to seeing the nature.” (Daniepan jing [Mahaparinirvana Sutra], fascicle 7)
Comment: Since the Buddha-nature can only be seen by a Buddha who has eliminated all delusions, this is the supreme, correct awareness.
“The arhats do not see the Buddha-nature.” (Daniepan jing [Mahaparinirvana Sutra], fascicle 27)
“Even though a bodhisattva has reached the tenth (of the ten stages), that bodhisattva still does not clearly see or know the Buddha-nature.” (Daniepan jing [Mahaparinirvana Sutra], fascicle 8)
Comment: A bodhisattva, even at the tenth of the stages, still cannot clearly see the Buddha-nature because subtle delusions remain. Needless to say this also applies to arhats.
‘Successively cultivate the three sagely and ten saintly (stages)’ are evidently the words of doctrinal scholars, and so to call this (teaching an) advocacy of the Seon School of the separate transmission outside of the doctrine is ridiculous.
In the Mahayana sutras, the Avatamaska and the Mahaparinirvana, the Buddha says that the stage of the Buddha where delusions are all ended is seeing the nature, and that there is no need for further cultivation thereafter. In the Platform Sutra the Sixth Patriarch speaks in detail of inside and outside completely clarified as seeing the nature. He did not speak of further cultivation. Even in the oldest text, the Dunhuang version, one cannot find ideas about gradual cultivation.
Bojo said that the ten faiths that overlay the delusions are the seeing of the nature, and that the removal of the delusions is gradual cultivation. One can see that this contradicts the words of the Sixth Patriarch. To the extent that one says that the ten faiths that lie layer upon layer over the delusions are the seeing of the nature, to that extent one is wrong. (To the extent that one says that) one must not leave the delusions as they are, that inevitably means that naturally one pursues gradual cultivation. And thus one must know that this idea of gradual cultivation is clearly that of the doctrinal scholars and not that of the Seon School.
“Just like a clear-eyed person who (sees) all the masses of material objects (with his eyes) covered by light gauze, the bodhisattva of the ultimate stage likewise sees all percepts. Just like a clear-eyed person who has no obstructions (sees) all the masses of material forms, the Tathagata sees all percepts likewise.” (Yujialun 50)
Comment: As even the bodhisattva of the ultimate and tenth stage has remaining subtle delusions, they do not see the nature.
However, we must note that even though one has reached (the state of) not producing a single thought, if one remains with the non-production of a single thought that is a great death that cannot come to life and is not called seeing the nature.
http://www.koreanbuddhism.net/master/dh ... q=0&page=1
Namdrol wrote:Awesome, so fools are buddhas and there is no need for Buddhism at all. Nice.
not just that no-one has turned the wheel of the dharma since him, not that they don't have that level of *insight* but that they have cultivated themselves that perfectly.
klqv wrote:may i please ask: ok it is the orthodoxy that they are buddhas i am sorry for slandering anyone: but what about mind to mind transmission. what is it?? really??? ???
Astus wrote:not the other way around that people bearing different titles are buddhas because of that
the question that i suppose one might want to ask is whether [you are trying to say that] zen teachers are enlightened to the buddha-mind in the exact same was as sakyamuni was. or to the same degree...Zen teachers being equal to buddhas, only in the sense that mind is buddha and there is no buddha outside the mind. But it should be understood in the way that only those are true teachers of Zen who are enlightened to the buddha-mind
Huifeng wrote:Wisdom and merit.
Unsurpassed amounts of both.
were would you place songchul there?Astus wrote:There are two approaches regarding the status of Zen teachers. One is that there is a bodhisattva path one takes on, you can find this view in the teachings of Zongmi, Jinul and Shengyan. The other is to point out that concepts of bodhisattvas and buddhahood are just concepts, it is mistaken to take them too seriously and one's better be a man of no affairs.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests