Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

General forum on Mahayana.

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby pueraeternus » Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:20 pm

Aemilius wrote:What are your grounds for saying that? That line of thinking presupposes that Buddha Shakyamuni knew only shravakayana, that he didn't know Mahayana, that he didn't know the symbolic transmission outside the sutras! Which is worse than ridiculous! Bhagavan Shakyamuni was fully enlightened, he didn't hold back teachings, but taught everything, including Mahayana and the symbolic transmission of Zen/Dhyan school, when the situation or opportunity arose for it.


The only presupposition is the fact that Shakyamuni taught only what we know as Sravakayana to his arhat disciples, since those were the only type of teachings transmitted for the first several hundred years of his dispensation. The Mahayana teachings only appeared later, and we have to accept this as fact. My faith in the Mahayana is not predicated on the need to blindly accept the mythic narrative of Mahayana traditions, which flies against the face of reality on the ground, vis a vis textual history and archaeological evidence.


Aemilius wrote:There is no need to believe that few narrow minded individuals were the essence of Dharma, that there was nothing else. Have you read the Transmission of the Lamp (or Transmission of the Light)? What causes your unbelief in these early masters of Mahayana?


As a Mahayanist, I believe Bodhisattvas must retain their faculties of intellect and reason, and not abandon these in favor of blind fundamentalism. That is one of the greatest homage I can pay to the masters of Mahayana, in return for the teachings they left behind.

Aemilius wrote:As it is only your personal lack of faith, it should not be presented as "truth". It has no other justification than your lack of insight in and knowledge of the nature of Mahayana/Chan.
It is widely known that Dharma existed as an oral tradition for several hundreds of years, and even more than a thousand years. This should not be forgotten and dismissed as nonexistent, when it carries the true nature of Dharma. It has been the true nature of early Mahayana Dharma, and also the nature of much of the later transmission of Dharma.


I have no problem if you think that I have lack of insight in these matters. The fact is that the Mahayana sutras all contain information about the state of the Sangha and historical developments that prove that they were not composed during the time of the Buddha, since they reflect the philosophical and soteriological concerns of the day.

There is absolutely no need to force oneself to believe that sutras such as the Lanka, Lotus and Avatamsaka were spoken by the historic Buddha. For me, I believe that the teachings of these sutras were inspired by dhyana masters who received them amidst visions of Buddhas, Bodhisattvas in samadhi, and hence written down and passed on to posterity. If you truly accept the concept of the timelessness and unobstructed nature of the Dharmakaya, then this won't post a problem.
If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

- The Open-Ended Proof from The Panoplia Prophetica
User avatar
pueraeternus
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby Sherab Dorje » Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:06 am

pueraeternus wrote:There is absolutely no need to force oneself to believe that sutras such as the Lanka, Lotus and Avatamsaka were spoken by the historic Buddha. For me, I believe that the teachings of these sutras were inspired by dhyana masters who received them amidst visions of Buddhas, Bodhisattvas in samadhi, and hence written down and passed on to posterity. If you truly accept the concept of the timelessness and unobstructed nature of the Dharmakaya, then this won't post a problem.
:good:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9934
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby Kunzang » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:47 pm

pueraeturnus wrote:The only presupposition is the fact that Shakyamuni taught only what we know as Sravakayana to his arhat disciples, since those were the only type of teachings transmitted for the first several hundred years of his dispensation. The Mahayana teachings only appeared later, and we have to accept this as fact.


No, we don't have to accept any such thing. I used to believe a similar narrative that you have chosen to have faith in, but I no longer have faith in it.

pueraeturnus wrote:There is absolutely no need to force oneself to believe that sutras such as the Lanka, Lotus and Avatamsaka were spoken by the historic Buddha.


No one is forcing anyone here.

pueraeturnus wrote:As a Mahayanist, I believe Bodhisattvas must retain their faculties of intellect and reason, and not abandon these in favor of blind fundamentalism.


This is a false dilemma, with the added bonus of being a puerile and tired ad hominem. I have not abandoned intellect or reason and I am not a blindly following Mahayana fundamentalist.

pueraeturnus wrote:The fact is that the Mahayana sutras all contain information about the state of the Sangha and historical developments that prove that they were not composed during the time of the Buddha, since they reflect the philosophical and soteriological concerns of the day.


The fact is, as the Gandhāran Buddhist Texts demonstrate, all sutras, not just the Mahayana contain this kind of information. For me, I'm not looking at the artefacts of the compilers of the texts to disprove the origins that the the teachings of the Mahayana sutras were with Buddha Shakyamuni. But I understand how people have adopted that narrative from the type of scholarship done in books like Who's Your Daddy Now. It's certainly seductive, but I no longer believe in its primacy.

pueraeturnus wrote:For me, I believe that the teachings of these sutras were inspired by dhyana masters who received them amidst visions of Buddhas, Bodhisattvas in samadhi, and hence written down and passed on to posterity.


That's fine. It's similar to what I used to believe as well. But it's still undeniably and irreducibly a matter of faith - unfalsifiable and without any witness in archaeology or texts, just as is the faith in bodhisattvas orally transmitting the Mahayana sutras for generations before they first began being translated into Chinese.
Kunzang
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 3:10 am

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby Sherlock » Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:15 pm

I think the study of the development of terma and pure vision texts could reveal a lot about how the Mahayana sutras developed. Scholars are not going to accept accounts of visions at face value of course, and it's quite obvious that many termas have antecedents with very similar wording. Rob Mayer wrote an interesting article here about this issue, and he's just barely scratching the surface. There was also an older work which I haven't really read in detail talking about the tradition of Indian nidhis.
Sherlock
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby Astus » Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:20 am

Transmission in Zen is not really a historical matter. It is mind to mind, not hand to hand. If we focus on historical facts and religious legends the true intention is already lost.

"According to tradition, Master Chih died in the year 514, while Bodhidharma came to Liang in 520; since there is a seven year discrepancy, why is it said that the twp met? This must be a mistake in the tradition. As to what is recorded in tradition, I will not discuss this matter now. All that's important is to understand the gist of the matter."
(Yuanwu's commentary on the case of Bodhidharma meeting the emperor, in The Blue Cliff Record, tr. T. Cleary, p. 5)

"We learn that Shakyamuni Buddha inherited the Dharma from Kashō Buddha, and we learn that Kashō Buddha inherited the Dharma from Shakyamuni Buddha. When we learn the matter in this way, it will be the true succession of Buddha after Buddha and Ancestor after Ancestor."
(Dogen: Shisho in Shobogenzo, tr. H. Nearman, p. 171)

"Hõen of Tõzan said, "Even Shakya and Maitreya are servants of another. I want to ask you, who is he?""
(Gateless Gate, case 45, tr. K. Sekida)

"all of the buddhas and all of their teachings of peerless perfect enlightenment spring forth from this sūtra."
(Diamond Sutra, ch. 8, tr. C. Muller)
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4254
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby pueraeternus » Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:37 am

Kunzang wrote:No, we don't have to accept any such thing. I used to believe a similar narrative that you have chosen to have faith in, but I no longer have faith in it.


It is not faith, but merely evidential realities on the ground.

Kunzang wrote:No one is forcing anyone here.


Non sequitur.

Kunzang wrote:This is a false dilemma, with the added bonus of being a puerile and tired ad hominem. I have not abandoned intellect or reason and I am not a blindly following Mahayana fundamentalist.


I am afraid I am not the one being puerile here.

Kunzang wrote:The fact is, as the Gandhāran Buddhist Texts demonstrate, all sutras, not just the Mahayana contain this kind of information. For me, I'm not looking at the artefacts of the compilers of the texts to disprove the origins that the the teachings of the Mahayana sutras were with Buddha Shakyamuni. But I understand how people have adopted that narrative from the type of scholarship done in books like Who's Your Daddy Now. It's certainly seductive, but I no longer believe in its primacy.


Fine by me. I am not about to change anyone's mind on what they want to believe, but if anyone wants to put forth questions of faith on such matters to me, then be prepared to hear my piece.

Kunzang wrote:That's fine. It's similar to what I used to believe as well. But it's still undeniably and irreducibly a matter of faith - unfalsifiable and without any witness in archaeology or texts, just as is the faith in bodhisattvas orally transmitting the Mahayana sutras for generations before they first began being translated into Chinese.


Not so if one looks at what we have found so far. And Mahayana sutras are by and large not oral transmissions such their structures are obviously not designed for oral transmission unlike the Agamas. To continuously assert otherwise despite such glaring discontinuities is what I would call "puerile".
If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

- The Open-Ended Proof from The Panoplia Prophetica
User avatar
pueraeternus
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby Kunzang » Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:45 am

pueraeturnus wrote:I am afraid I am not the one being puerile here.


The use of the term "puerile" was meant to be taken as a playful pun on your username, pueraeturnus, I probably should have put a smilie next to it.

However, I do happen to believe it actually is being a bit childish to characterize people of a different faith than yours as being blindly-following fundamentalists who have abandoned intellect and reason. It's unwarranted and unkind.

To continually come across this dismissive attitude as the default position here on Dharmawheel makes this place feel like an unsafe space in which to share.

I might wish to discuss more at length about the issues I've raised, but I feel constrained since it's already off-topic. Perhaps it would be better to start a different thread?
Kunzang
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 3:10 am

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby catmoon » Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:02 am

People do get grumpy in online forums. It seems to be a flaw in the medium. So the best path I have found is to ignore it, and if you can't ignore it either withdraw from the thread or see if a moderator is willing to intervene.

You never know what kind of a horrible day someone has just had when they sit down to the computer. People are not always at their best. A little compassion goes a long way in such a case.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby pueraeternus » Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:18 pm

Kunzang wrote:
The use of the term "puerile" was meant to be taken as a playful pun on your username, pueraeturnus, I probably should have put a smilie next to it.

However, I do happen to believe it actually is being a bit childish to characterize people of a different faith than yours as being blindly-following fundamentalists who have abandoned intellect and reason. It's unwarranted and unkind.

To continually come across this dismissive attitude as the default position here on Dharmawheel makes this place feel like an unsafe space in which to share.

I might wish to discuss more at length about the issues I've raised, but I feel constrained since it's already off-topic. Perhaps it would be better to start a different thread?


I don't think I was childish at all, since Aemilius questioned me and I think I should offer a reply to his comments. So my comments were not unwarranted. Neither is it unkind, since whoever participated in this discussion have seen these arguments from both sides many times, and have read studies on such matters. I didn't attack any defenseless auntie out of the blue.

Dismissive? It runs both ways dear.

We discussed this topic many times in various subforums, but I think starting a new thread might be a good thing. Who knows, we might be able to tease out more information along the way.
If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

- The Open-Ended Proof from The Panoplia Prophetica
User avatar
pueraeternus
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby Aemilius » Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:57 pm

pueraeternus wrote: The only presupposition is the fact that Shakyamuni taught only what we know as Sravakayana to his arhat disciples, since those were the only type of teachings transmitted for the first several hundred years of his dispensation. The Mahayana teachings only appeared later, and we have to accept this as fact. My faith in the Mahayana is not predicated on the need to blindly accept the mythic narrative of Mahayana traditions, which flies against the face of reality on the ground, vis a vis textual history and archaeological evidence.
As a Mahayanist, I believe Bodhisattvas must retain their faculties of intellect and reason, and not abandon these in favor of blind fundamentalism. That is one of the greatest homage I can pay to the masters of Mahayana, in return for the teachings they left behind.
I have no problem if you think that I have lack of insight in these matters. The fact is that the Mahayana sutras all contain information about the state of the Sangha and historical developments that prove that they were not composed during the time of the Buddha, since they reflect the philosophical and soteriological concerns of the day.


This is a profound and difficult question. Humanity sees the world according to its level of consciousness. That is the basis and cause why this narrow materialistic way of seeing the history of buddhism has arisen. If the level of human consciousness was different it would see the world diffrently, it would see the history of buddhism diffrently.
There are in Dharma three levels of faith, they are explained in Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation and in other texts. There is faith that is based on experience, there is faith that sees reality.
My personal view is that even the Mahayana sutras are a pale reflection of the actual transcendental teachings, the transcendental events, that took place during the earthly career of Buddha Shakyamuni.
There are levels of spiritual experience in Dharma, levels of vision in Dharma, and you will see the world and the history of Dharma accordingly. If you are a hell being or an icchantika, a preta, a deva, or a bodhisattva, your perception of the world, its cause and results, its events and its history, varies accordingly. The view and experience of the world is profoundly different in each case.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby pueraeternus » Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:31 pm

Aemilius wrote:This is a profound and difficult question. Humanity sees the world according to its level of consciousness. That is the basis and cause why this narrow materialistic way of seeing the history of buddhism has arisen. If the level of human consciousness was different it would see the world diffrently, it would see the history of buddhism diffrently.
There are in Dharma three levels of faith, they are explained in Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation and in other texts. There is faith that is based on experience, there is faith that sees reality.
My personal view is that even the Mahayana sutras are a pale reflection of the actual transcendental teachings, the transcendental events, that took place during the earthly career of Buddha Shakyamuni.
There are levels of spiritual experience in Dharma, levels of vision in Dharma, and you will see the world and the history of Dharma accordingly. If you are a hell being or an icchantika, a preta, a deva, or a bodhisattva, your perception of the world, its cause and results, its events and its history, varies accordingly. The view and experience of the world is profoundly different in each case.


Materialistic? No - to me, this is just a realistic way of seeing history. If the Mahayana sutras were really spoken during the time of the Buddha, then they should have all the characteristics of an oral transmission like the Agamas do. But they don't - they were composed as literary compositions. They would also not exhibit such obvious philosophical developments as they gradually appeared as written texts - there is an obvious growth cycle of the Mahayana corpus that would not have existed should the nirmanakaya Buddha had taught all of it himself.

To me, such views as using the explanation of relative spiritual perception are just devout expressions of religious fervor - a very good way of upaya in engendering great faith. However, having great faith and little wisdom and discernment is not very healthy in the long run.
If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

- The Open-Ended Proof from The Panoplia Prophetica
User avatar
pueraeternus
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby Aemilius » Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:45 pm

pueraeternus wrote:Materialistic? No - to me, this is just a realistic way of seeing history. If the Mahayana sutras were really spoken during the time of the Buddha, then they should have all the characteristics of an oral transmission like the Agamas do. But they don't - they were composed as literary compositions. They would also not exhibit such obvious philosophical developments as they gradually appeared as written texts - there is an obvious growth cycle of the Mahayana corpus that would not have existed should the nirmanakaya Buddha had taught all of it himself.


It is not a matter of faith, it is more like the old metaphor of a frog living in a well, who can't imagine what the word "ocean" means. Or like ants living in an anthill who can't imagine anything vaster than their enemy anthill otherside of the field. This means that there are much vaster worlds beyond the human world, if you get to know even a littlebit about them, you will realize that human "knowledge" is merely speculation of little ants living in their anthill, who can never think of vaster beings and vaster worlds, who have made the size of their anthill a standard for measuring the whole universe. What you call "obvious" is a matter of faith. The Agamas and Nikayas are a very much diminished version of the the orginal thing, you can prove it for yourself, just meditate till you can fly in space. This possibility is promised by Shakyamuni in the Sravakayana sutras, so you can see it for yourself. Then try to meet some of the gods that live for one million years, and you'll see what kind of place the Earth is! Earth is like an iron box; human state is like living in an iron box, closed all around.
The idea of gradual development of the mahayana is totally wrong. It fails to see and experience the reality that is the cause and basis of the sutras, and it therefore makes false conclusions.
Let's say there were instructions for swimming, then the ability to swim disappeared. Some people continued to transmit the precepts for swimming. As they really couldn't swim anymore, so their knowledge of swimming got further and further away from truth.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby pueraeternus » Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:50 pm

Aemilius wrote:It is not a matter of faith, it is more like the old metaphor of a frog living in a well, who can't imagine what the word "ocean" means. Or like ants living in an anthill who can't imagine anything vaster than their enemy anthill otherside of the field. This means that there are much vaster worlds beyond the human world
if you get to know even a littlebit about them, you will realize that human "knowledge" is merely speculation of little ants living in their anthill, who can never think of vaster beings and vaster worlds, who have made the size of their anthill a standard for measuring the whole universe. What you call "obvious" is a matter of faith. The Agamas and Nikayas are a very much diminished version of the the orginal thing, you can prove it for yourself, just meditate till you can fly in space.
This possibility is promised by Shakyamuni in the Sravakayana sutras, so you can see it for yourself. Then try to meet some of the gods that live for one million years, and you'll see what kind of place the Earth is! Earth is like an iron box; human state is like living in an iron box, closed all around.
The idea of gradual development of the mahayana is totally wrong. It fails to see and experience the reality that is the cause and basis of the sutras, and it therefore makes false conclusions.
Let's say there were instructions for swimming, then the ability to swim disappeared. Some people continued to transmit the precepts for swimming. As they really couldn't swim anymore, so their knowledge of swimming got further and further away from truth.


You are confusing the issue. I have no doubt that many of the Mahayana teachings are timeless and that today, if one enters the dharmasrotasamadhi, one can receive profound teachings from Sambhogakaya Buddhas as befit one's current soteriological need. However, this does not mean that this profound teaching that one just received (say from Shakyamuni's Sambhogakaya emanation in another universe) was taught in Vulture Peak by the Nirmanakaya Buddha 2500 years ago! No - it was taught today, with language and context that is relevant to this time and space, so that people from this point in time can benefit from a teaching that is most updated and relevant.

That's my point - profound teachings are timeless, but they were taught at different times in our history on this planet. And we can trace at which historical point such teachings were transmitted to our Saha world.

I am of the view that the Agamas and Nikayas are NOT diminished teachings, but rather teachings that were most suitable for that time and space during Shakyamuni's earthly life here on Jambudvipa. When it was time for other types of teachings, those were transmitted through various means. For example, sometime around the 4th century, a mahasattva bodhisattva in Lanka enters into samadhi, and in his dream vision saw the manomakaya bodies of Shakyamuni, Mahamati and a host of other bodhisattvas descending into the city of Lanka. He follows after and records the sermon.

This is how I imagined it.
If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

- The Open-Ended Proof from The Panoplia Prophetica
User avatar
pueraeternus
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby Aemilius » Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:52 pm

I see your point, but I have seen it all differently. There are certain necessities why the Mahayana, or what is described as Mahayana, took place on Earth, in Jambudvipa or in India, roughly 2500 years ago. Hinayana was a politically acceptable creation of some later arhats, it was created purposefully by arhats who were a split-off group from the original teaching and the original community. I am quite certain of this, that the Mahayana was and is a historical movement started by Buddha Shakyamuni.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby pueraeternus » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:27 am

Aemilius wrote:I see your point, but I have seen it all differently. There are certain necessities why the Mahayana, or what is described as Mahayana, took place on Earth, in Jambudvipa or in India, roughly 2500 years ago. Hinayana was a politically acceptable creation of some later arhats, it was created purposefully by arhats who were a split-off group from the original teaching and the original community. I am quite certain of this, that the Mahayana was and is a historical movement started by Buddha Shakyamuni.


Well, then I would say that the Mahayana, despite its vaunted peerless wisdom, insight and means, are quite careless in neglecting to leave obvious clues to its great antiquity and original genesis by Shakyamuni. Also, I didn't know arhats are capable of such great deviousness and political machinations. Must be a class of skillful means I have yet come across in my study.
If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

- The Open-Ended Proof from The Panoplia Prophetica
User avatar
pueraeternus
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby Aemilius » Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:09 am

pueraeternus wrote:
Aemilius wrote:I see your point, but I have seen it all differently. There are certain necessities why the Mahayana, or what is described as Mahayana, took place on Earth, in Jambudvipa or in India, roughly 2500 years ago. Hinayana was a politically acceptable creation of some later arhats, it was created purposefully by arhats who were a split-off group from the original teaching and the original community. I am quite certain of this, that the Mahayana was and is a historical movement started by Buddha Shakyamuni.


Well, then I would say that the Mahayana, despite its vaunted peerless wisdom, insight and means, are quite careless in neglecting to leave obvious clues to its great antiquity and original genesis by Shakyamuni. Also, I didn't know arhats are capable of such great deviousness and political machinations. Must be a class of skillful means I have yet come across in my study.


Shakyamuni was Sambhogkaya, Nirmanakaya and Dharmakaya, and their natural unity as Svabhikakaya, when he lived on Earth, it is a mistake to think that Sambhogakaya etc appeared only later.

Have You heard of the chinese master Zhi-yi? How he lectured on the first character in the name of the Lotus of th True Law sutra for 90 days? The existing sravakayana sutras are quite brief, the example of ZhiYi gives us some clue of how vast teachings there have been in the early period of Dharma. I have had an experience that Shakyamuni had taught a teaching of a graded path that contains 100 stages, and he had taught it several times, but nothing of it remains; Avatamsaka Sutra describes a path that has 52 stages, it is the closest thing that we have.

There is a whole chapter of buddhist history that remains undisclosed, namely that most of the early monks and even many Arhats backslided, many Arhats even gave up the whole thing after a few years. These kinds of evolutionary events made it necessary for the Buddha to teach the Prajña Paramita sutras, then later the Tathagatagarbha sutras, the Amitabha sutras, and the White Lotus sutra.
Sarvastivada Abhidharma has a classification of Arhats, that has Arhats that backslide and Arhats who don't backslide. The path is very long, difficult, or endless even. After enlightenment there still remain some really serious problems, when you encounter them you will know what the clues are. Before it you will probably believe the public edifice of the Sravakayana, which not really true at all. This situation is revealed, or merely hinted at, in the Lotus of the True Law sutra.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby pueraeternus » Fri Nov 23, 2012 4:53 pm

Aemilius wrote:Shakyamuni was Sambhogkaya, Nirmanakaya and Dharmakaya, and their natural unity as Svabhikakaya, when he lived on Earth, it is a mistake to think that Sambhogakaya etc appeared only later.


Actually, what we see on earth in the form of a physical Buddha (if we live in the time of Shakyamuni) is the nirmanakaya aspect. Only to tenth-level Bodhisattvas does the Buddha display the Sambhogakaya.

Aemilius wrote:Have You heard of the chinese master Zhi-yi? How he lectured on the first character in the name of the Lotus of th True Law sutra for 90 days? The existing sravakayana sutras are quite brief, the example of ZhiYi gives us some clue of how vast teachings there have been in the early period of Dharma. I have had an experience that Shakyamuni had taught a teaching of a graded path that contains 100 stages, and he had taught it several times, but nothing of it remains; Avatamsaka Sutra describes a path that has 52 stages, it is the closest thing that we have.


I have certainly heard of Zhiyi, but it doesn't prove anything with regards to the question if the Mahayana teachings were taught by the nirmanakaya. Your visionary experiences (if that is what you meant), admirable though they are, also does not prove anything with regards to what teachings were taught during the Buddha's ministry during his earthly time on earth.

Aemilius wrote:There is a whole chapter of buddhist history that remains undisclosed, namely that most of the early monks and even many Arhats backslided, many Arhats even gave up the whole thing after a few years. These kinds of evolutionary events made it necessary for the Buddha to teach the Prajña Paramita sutras, then later the Tathagatagarbha sutras, the Amitabha sutras, and the White Lotus sutra.
Sarvastivada Abhidharma has a classification of Arhats, that has Arhats that backslide and Arhats who don't backslide. The path is very long, difficult, or endless even. After enlightenment there still remain some really serious problems, when you encounter them you will know what the clues are. Before it you will probably believe the public edifice of the Sravakayana, which not really true at all. This situation is revealed, or merely hinted at, in the Lotus of the True Law sutra.


The Lotus Sutra presents a view that is not always shared by other Mahayana sutras. For example, the Prajnaparamitas do not assert that Arhats and Prateyakabuddhas have to proceed on to Buddhahood, whereas the Lotus insists that they will have to.

It is quite an exercise to imagine that just because some schools consider Arhats may be susceptible to backsliding (and not all schools assert this), then a group of Arhats would purposely block part of the Buddha's teachings. There are no evidence on the ground that even marginally support your assertions.

Sorry - I cannot agree with your theory, since it lacks support in so many areas.
If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

- The Open-Ended Proof from The Panoplia Prophetica
User avatar
pueraeternus
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby Leo Rivers » Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:30 am

User avatar
Leo Rivers
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:52 am

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby Aemilius » Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:44 am

pueraeternus wrote:Actually, what we see on earth in the form of a physical Buddha (if we live in the time of Shakyamuni) is the nirmanakaya aspect. Only to tenth-level Bodhisattvas does the Buddha display the Sambhogakaya.
I have certainly heard of Zhiyi, but it doesn't prove anything with regards to the question if the Mahayana teachings were taught by the nirmanakaya. Your visionary experiences (if that is what you meant), admirable though they are, also does not prove anything with regards to what teachings were taught during the Buddha's ministry during his earthly time on earth.
The Lotus Sutra presents a view that is not always shared by other Mahayana sutras. For example, the Prajnaparamitas do not assert that Arhats and Prateyakabuddhas have to proceed on to Buddhahood, whereas the Lotus insists that they will have to.
Sorry - I cannot agree with your theory, since it lacks support in so many areas.


The modern buddhism that you have faith in is a product of modern european imagination. It completely dismisses the fact that Zhi Yi and thousands of other enlightened Mahayana masters have perceived reality and do perceive reality. Your view is fundamentally false, your view is dependent on modern european consciousness, it is a manifestation of this consciousness, it has an inherent racist or cultural bias when it regards the enlightened masters in the Great tree of Mahayana to be equivalent to monkeys in their worth and in their knowledge.
svaha
User avatar
Aemilius
 
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Sri Simha in Zen/Chan lineage

Postby Jnana » Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:31 pm

Aemilius wrote:The modern buddhism that you have faith in is a product of modern european imagination. It completely dismisses the fact that Zhi Yi and thousands of other enlightened Mahayana masters have perceived reality and do perceive reality. Your view is fundamentally false, your view is dependent on modern european consciousness, it is a manifestation of this consciousness, it has an inherent racist or cultural bias when it regards the enlightened masters in the Great tree of Mahayana to be equivalent to monkeys in their worth and in their knowledge.

And what about all of the Buddhists in ancient India that didn't accept that the Mahāyāna or the Trikāya theory or the Lotus Sūtra? Surely their views weren't "a product of modern european imagination"? And given that they were Indians and Buddhists, surely they weren't prone to an "inherent racist or cultural bias"?
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Mahāyāna Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Inge, Sherab Dorje and 14 guests

>