Attainment of Buddhahood is impossible

[ground]

If it removes all traces of conditioning/forming/fabricating, then I see no inherent conflict.

So something changeable can become unchangeable?

Huh?

What's the connection between my statement and your question?


Kind regards

[Pero]

OMG, TMingyur is Retro's troll?!

[ground]

OMG, TMingyur is Retro's troll?!

No, sorry ... I mis-clicked ...

Kind regards

[ground]

That's the right one ...

... what is attainable is the cessation of obscurations and with this comes the cessation of papanca.

So something changeable can become something unchangeable, or something become completely nothing?

Huh?

What's the connection between my statement and your question?


Kind regards

[Pero]

OMG, TMingyur is Retro's troll?!

No, sorry ... I mis-clicked ...

Oh LOL!

[Sherab]

So composite things have no nature and are therefore unreal/untrue but there are real/true connections between them?

Like true love between imagined lovers? Unlikely, don't you think?

So dependent arising does not truly exist, you agree?

So there is a permanent continua even though the components are impermanent? If so, is it not possible for all components to cease and therefore a cessation of the permanent continua?

To suppose a continuum besides components is like saying that there is a body besides the arms, legs, torso and head.

No such supposition. The point is when the components ceased, then there is no continua. Hence, no point using continua as an argument.

What is it that previously has no such insight but now has this insight?

Insight is a direct understanding just like one understands how to ride a bike. To conceive there is a separate self understanding it is, again, falls under the concept of self-view, about which you may read in general Buddhist books.

The point is that there is still a change.

[Sherab]

If your nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since if your nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If your nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will enable you to attain buddhahood, since your nature is unchangeable.

Yet Buddha taught that there is path to buddhahood.
And Buddha also taught that buddhahood is not attained.

Your whole line of reasoning is predicated in the idea of buddhahood being a thing. There is no substantial person, and no substantial buddhahood. Therefore, ignorance is possible, and also liberation.

I don't think my line of reasoning requires the assumption that buddhahood is a thing.

[Sherab]

That's the right one ...

... what is attainable is the cessation of obscurations and with this comes the cessation of papanca.

So something changeable can become something unchangeable, or something become completely nothing?

Huh?

What's the connection between my statement and your question?


Kind regards

You mentioned obscurations. So when obscurations changes (in this case ceases), is there something unchangeable left behind or there is completely nothing?

[Sherab]

If your nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since if your nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If your nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will enable you to attain buddhahood, since your nature is unchangeable.

Yet Buddha taught that there is path to buddhahood.
And Buddha also taught that buddhahood is not attained.

Don't you have some practice to do?

Well, what you waiting for then?

DO IT!

Thank you for your concern.

[Malcolm]

If your nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since if your nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If your nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will enable you to attain buddhahood, since your nature is unchangeable.

Yet Buddha taught that there is path to buddhahood.
And Buddha also taught that buddhahood is not attained.

Your whole line of reasoning is predicated in the idea of buddhahood being a thing. There is no substantial person, and no substantial buddhahood. Therefore, ignorance is possible, and also liberation.

I don't think my line of reasoning requires the assumption that buddhahood is a thing.

A nature is either substantial or it is not a nature.

[Sherab]

A nature is either substantial or it is not a nature.

Substantial as in physically substantial or mentalistically substantial or both?

[Malcolm]

A nature is either substantial or it is not a nature.

Substantial as in physically substantial or mentalistically substantial or both?

Either.

[Sherab]

A nature is either substantial or it is not a nature.

Substantial as in physically substantial or mentalistically substantial or both?

Either.

Is Buddhahood a state then?

[Kunga Lhadzom]

http://www.purifymind.com/BuddhahoodSutra.htm

[ground]

You mentioned obscurations. So when obscurations changes (in this case ceases), is there something unchangeable left behind or there is completely nothing?

There is experience (i.e. the aggregates) before and there is experience after and experience is impermanent.

Kind regards

[Astus]

So dependent arising does not truly exist, you agree?

No such supposition. The point is when the components ceased, then there is no continua. Hence, no point using continua as an argument.

The point is that there is still a change.

Dependent arising means that phenomena appear based on causes and conditions. There is no separate dependent arising just as there is no separate emptiness. Where could you establish "dependent arising" itself as truly existent?

Components come and go but not without cause and effect. The idea of total cessation is the view of annihilation.

Again, such concepts as "change" and "permanence" are expressions only. Without understanding that change refers to impermanent phenomena it is easy to draw inaccurate conclusions.

[LastLegend]

Your family and you occupy a space called house. And you have love for your parents and siblings. If you can extend this love to all beings who occupy space and time, then you are practicing Buddhism. We beings occupy the whole space and time and everywhere, this wholeness of space and time is us, our body. This is Buddha Nature/Mind.

[LastLegend]

Here some more philosophical headaches

If its empty, can you say it's cause or not caused?

Can it be both?

Or you cannot define it?

I'll just leave it to emptiness (truly empty of definitions and talks) as Taoism says the great tao. Now I am starting to believe that Buddha Nature and Mind cannot be defined but we can describe it, and in this confusion arises. By trying to define it, we are restricting to a thing. We delude ourselves to bring it to our understanding or possession by saying it is this and it is that or not this and that. This is grasping and attachment-delusion.

[Malcolm]

Is Buddhahood a state then?

Good question: we treat buddhahood as if it were a state -- the term state implies something steady -- when one thing changes into another thing, we call that a "change of state". But buddhahood is no more a state that ignorance is. In other words, ultimately there is no buddhahood. Buddhahood is just a name for a relative appearance. When the causes and conditions that support that appearance cease, so does buddhahood.

Buddhahood is just the realization of that principle.

N

[PadmaVonSamba]

If your nature is changeable, buddhahood is not attainable since if your nature is changeable, the buddhahood attained could also change.
If your nature is unchangeable, no amount of practice will enable you to attain buddhahood, since your nature is unchangeable.

Yet Buddha taught that there is path to buddhahood.
And Buddha also taught that buddhahood is not attained.

The premise is misunderstood.
But in the context of the question, buddhahood already exists, so you are correct, it is not attained.
What you describe as "your nature" is actually the things that obscure realization of the real "your nature", which is buddhahood.
So, yes, your nature is unchangable. Practice is merely there to remove the obscurations.

It is like sweeping the dust off the floor. The floor doesn't change at all. Only the condition is changed from dirty to clean.