Attainment of Buddhahood is impossible

[gregkavarnos]

Dear Sherab,

I am actually being 100% serious. I have had more insight into questions like this through an hour of sincere practice than hours spent on online forums.

[muni]

[

It is like sweeping the dust off the floor. The floor doesn't change at all.

Groundless floor.

[Sherab]

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

So when ignorance ceases, Buddhahood ceases. What is left then is just is. Is that what you mean?

[Sherab]

Dear Sherab,

I am actually being 100% serious. I have had more insight into questions like this through an hour of sincere practice than hours spent on online forums.

I know you are serious about what you said and that you meant well.

[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.

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.

To say that "your nature is unchangeable" is a conceptual trap because as long as we are on the wrong side of enlightenment, all nature are mere illusions. That's how I see it.

[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

So when ignorance ceases, Buddhahood ceases. What is left then is just is. Is that what you mean?

When there are no more sentient beings, there are no more buddhas either.

[Sherab]

So when ignorance ceases, Buddhahood ceases.

When there are no more sentient beings, there are no more buddhas either.

I don't see a difference in meaning between these two sentences. So I am not sure what meaning you intended to convey.