So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by tkp67 »

jake wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:19 pm
tkp67 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:09 pm If you say it was all a show and his life a mirage you destroy the teaching that buddhahood in human form is attainable.
Have you read the Lotus Sutra?
Yes.

Why not state why you believe I am incorrect based on it.

It would end needless doubt and show people can not only read the Lotus but grasp it.

The lotus has both provision and true aspect within according to the 9 devices the buddha used in his ordinary existence.

His existence displayed as much and we enjoy the cause and effect from this.

I would welcome correction in this manner.

I have yet to find it.

:anjali:
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by tkp67 »

LastLegend wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:10 pm
tkp67 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 1:16 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 7:37 am So, you probably won’t find, specifically, sutras that say whether a buddha has beliefs or not, because it doesn’t matter in that regard. Just as a Buddha is not moved depending on whether the sky is clear or cloudy, likewise, the question of ‘believing’ is Irrelevant.
By this logic suffering doesn't matter because buddhas no longer experience it once liberated.

From a perspective of provision it serves to explain belief being transcended by a liberated being but the ignorance of ordinary beings never becomes irrelevant to buddhas as long as it causes suffering in humans.

Belief causes suffering in humans because they fail to realize the inherent self in such things is put there by the mind cognizing such things as possessing an inherent self in the first place.

Now the question becomes can belief/faith exist without an INHERENT self. I contend the object of belief is the basis for belief/faith as appearing either as possessing an inherent self or being empty while maintaining the four immeasurable.

I have yet to find a position that renders this as false but am open to understanding one.
Does a Buddha know suffering?

Be careful on establishing what a Buddha is and isn’t. :lol:
If the buddha didn't understand suffering he couldn't teach liberation from it. He wasn't perturbed by it so he could remain joyful and compassionate while understanding it.

This is why Nichiren made the following statement.
CONCERNING my present exile,1 there are two important matters that I must mention. One is that I feel immense joy. The reason is that this world is called the sahā world, sahā meaning endurance. This is why the Buddha is also called “One Who Can Endure.” In the sahā world,2 there are one billion Mount Sumerus, one billion suns and moons, and one billion groups of four continents. Among all these worlds, it was in the world at the center—with its Mount Sumeru, sun and moon, and four continents—that the Buddha made his advent. Japan is a tiny island country situated in a remote corner of that world, to the northeast of the country in which the Buddha appeared.
He is displaying the same state as Shakyamuni both subtlety and in the pretense of ordinary existence. If this wasn't a latent capacity the buddha would not have taught liberation.

Remember friends Nichiren teaches that a true buddha displays the behavior of enduring the minds of others without being separated from them. This mirrors the existence of the world honored one himself.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by Queequeg »

tkp67 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:09 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 1:21 pm
tkp67 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 1:16 pm

By this logic suffering doesn't matter because buddhas no longer experience it once liberated.
Buddhas do not even perceive suffering, since they have no impure perceptions. To a buddha, all is buddhahood.
Yet Shakyamuni perceived the sufferings of people well enough to teach them according to cause, capacity and conditions. His existence was not independent of ours.

If you say it was all a show and his life a mirage you destroy the teaching that buddhahood in human form is attainable. It also denies his declaration and desire to make himself equal with all sentient beings by proxy. The lotus was taught as a proof. If it does not hold up to the light of the lotus sutra it is not congruent with his enlightenment.
Speaking as one who reveres the Lotus to another, this is not generally how the Buddha is understood, except in some provisional folklore sort of way.

The Buddha does not depend on anything. A buddha appears to living beings dependent on the confusion of those sentient beings who see the Buddha. That confusion is not shared by the buddha. The buddha sees no sentient beings because he is not confused. The buddha sees the confusion and makes impressions on the confusion that leads the confusion to unbind. But that's not quite right, because there is no effort or intention - the buddha's appearances to sentient beings are spontaneous in perfect response to confusion - if there is confusion, then there is also clarity. In other words, the buddha arises to sentient beings out of their confusion, and that apparition teaches the ball of confusion how to unbind itself and dispel the confusion because confusion implicitly includes its dispelling. Sentient beings are nothing but instances of confusion, with the unbinding of confusion implicit in the confusion itself (ie. buddha nature).

Actually, as long as you reify sentient beings as something irreducible, you block the possibility of buddhahood in this life, and in all lives. Its only when sentient beings are understood to be empty that buddhahood is immediately possible.

You make the mistake that when the Buddha declares that he wishes to make all equal to himself that the buddha is reducing himself to a sentient being. This is not the case. That statement about making all equal to himself refers to liberating all sentient beings into bodhi.
Last edited by Queequeg on Wed May 12, 2021 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Nicholas2727
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:44 am

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by Nicholas2727 »

Malcolm wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 1:21 pm
tkp67 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 1:16 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 7:37 am So, you probably won’t find, specifically, sutras that say whether a buddha has beliefs or not, because it doesn’t matter in that regard. Just as a Buddha is not moved depending on whether the sky is clear or cloudy, likewise, the question of ‘believing’ is Irrelevant.
By this logic suffering doesn't matter because buddhas no longer experience it once liberated.
Buddhas do not even perceive suffering, since they have no impure perceptions. To a buddha, all is buddhahood.
I remember when I was reading Treasures of the Sakya Lineage there was a section that discussed disagreement on this point. If I remember correctly the book said that the Sakya school says Buddha's do not see suffering, although the Gelug's say Buddha's do see suffering. Not sure how other schools stand on the disagreement, but just thought I would include this.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by Queequeg »

tkp67 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:32 pm If the buddha didn't understand suffering he couldn't teach liberation from it. He wasn't perturbed by it so he could remain joyful and compassionate while understanding it.
Here is what the Buddha says in the Lotus:
the Tathāgata perceives all the marks of the triple world as they really are: that there is no birth and death, coming or going; that there is also no existence or extinction in the world, truth or falsehood, sameness or difference. The Tathāgata does not view the triple world as sentient beings in the triple world see it. The Tathāgata perceives such things clearly and without mistakes.

“Since sentient beings have various natures, desires, behaviors, thoughts, and distinctions, the Tathāgata, wanting to cause them to plant roots of good merit, has explained various teachings through a variety of examples, explanations, and illustrations. He has not desisted from doing buddha acts even for a single moment and in this way it has been an extremely long time since I attained buddhahood. My lifespan is immeasurable and incalculable. I abide forever without entering parinirvāṇa.
In the first paragraph quoted, the Buddha is explaining how buddhas see the triple world.

In the second paragraph, the Buddha is describing how sentient beings see the buddha. Sentient beings see the buddha as having intentions, because that's the basis of the Triple World (Desire, Form, and Formless Realms). We project the basis of our mistaken notions about the world onto the buddha, and as upaya, this is fine; understanding the world in such a way may be conducive to unbinding our confusion. But, as the Buddha declares, this is not how he sees the world.

By the way, immediately before this passage, the Buddha explains that he tells skillful stories to cause sentient beings to tend toward liberation. Here is a sutra explaining that its just a story:
“O sons of a virtuous family! During this interim I explained about the Buddha Dīpaṃkara and others. Furthermore, I also said that they had entered parinirvāṇa. I have explained such things through skillful means.

“O sons of a virtuous family! If any sentient being comes to me, I perceive the dullness or sharpness of his faith and other faculties with my buddhaeye. According to the way I should bring them to the path, I, myself, proclaim different names and lifespans in various places. In each case I have also clearly stated that I would enter parinirvāṇa. Through various skillful means I have explained subtle teachings and have made the sentient beings rejoice.

“O sons of a virtuous family! To those beings whom the Tathāgata perceives as taking pleasure in the inferior teachings, who have few qualities and grave defilements, he teaches that the Buddha attained highest, complete enlightenment after he re nounced household life in his young age. However, it has been a very long time indeed since I attained buddhahood. I give such an explanation only to lead and inspire the sentient beings to enter the buddha path through skillful means.

“O sons of a virtuous family! The sutras that the Tathāgata has expounded are all to save the sentient beings. Whether the Tathāgata teaches about himself or others, whether he reveals his form or that of others, whether he shows his acts or those of others, everything he says is true, never false.
Those quotes are from the BDK translation of Kumarajiva's Chinese. Here's the same passage from an English translation of the Tibetan translation of the text:
Since I began teaching the Dharma to beings in this Sahā world realm and in another hundred thousand quintillion world realms, noble ones, those other tathāgatas, arhats, perfectly enlightened buddhas whom I have previously mentioned, beginning with Tathāgata Dīpaṃkara, and the passing into nirvāṇa of those tathāgatas, arhats, perfectly enlightened buddhas, were my emanations, noble ones, in order to accomplish the teaching of the Dharma through skillful methods. Moreover, noble ones, the Tathāgata, on seeing the extent of the faculties and diligence of the successive beings of future times, states what will be his name in those times, and states when his passing into nirvāṇa will occur, and in that way he will satisfy beings with various kinds of Dharma teachings.

15.­7
“Noble ones, the Tathāgata says to beings with various aspirations, few roots of merit, and many kleśas, ‘Bhikṣus, I am young; I renounced my family and it has not been long, bhikṣus, since I have attained the highest, complete enlightenment of perfect buddhahood.’

“Noble ones, even though it has thus been a long time since the Tathāgata attained the highest, complete enlightenment of perfect buddhahood, he says, ‘It has not been long since I attained the highest, complete enlightenment of perfect buddhahood.’ That kind of Dharma was taught solely for the purpose of ripening beings and bringing them into the teaching.

15.­8
“Noble ones, all those Dharma teachings were taught by the Tathāgata in order to guide beings.

“Noble ones, the words the Tathāgata speaks in order to guide beings, whether spoken by myself or spoken by someone else, whether concerning myself or concerning anyone else‍—whatever Dharma teachings the Tathāgata has taught, all are the truth that is spoken by the Tathāgata. The Tathāgata does not lie.

15.­9
“Why is that? The Tathāgata has seen the three realms exactly as they are: there is no birth, no death, no transmigration, no becoming, no saṃsāra, no nirvāṇa, no being, no nonbeing, no existence, no nonexistence, no ‘like this,’ no ‘not like this,’ no ‘untrue,’ and no ‘not untrue.’ The Tathāgata does not see the three realms in the way that ordinary, foolish beings see them. Concerning this, the Tathāgata has the direct perception of phenomena, and there is no phenomenon of which he is oblivious. Therefore, whatever the Tathāgata says is all the truth, without any lies. However, as beings have different kinds of conduct, different kinds of aspirations, and different kinds of perception and conception, in order that they may develop roots of merit, the Tathāgata teaches many kinds of Dharma teachings, with many kinds of goals.

15.­10
“Noble ones, whatever the Tathāgata has to do, that is what the Tathāgata does. The Tathāgata, who has attained perfect buddhahood a long time ago, has an immeasurable lifespan. He always remains and does not pass into nirvāṇa, but creates the appearance of passing into nirvāṇa in order to benefit his students.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
frankie
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:29 pm

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by frankie »

[quote=Malcolm post
1) Buddhas do not even perceive suffering, 2) since they have no impure perceptions. 3)To a buddha, all is buddhahood.
[/quote]

Just so people don't take that too literally; if one wanted to expand the above reductionist ad-absurdum, it might look a bit like:

1) Yes they do really. It's part of their job specification in compassionately responding to those requiring salvic guidance. Indeed, in the 'story about a story', Shakyamuni was 'persuaded' to do so in order to assist us in achieving release from the nightmarish Hotel Samsara.

2) It therefore follows that they are acutely and forensically aware of suffering/impure perceptions, but do not indulge in or suffer from them personally.

3) At the same time as perceiving all in its ghastly relativity and essential and pristine purity, while also wizarding up all sorts of marvellousness for the benefit of beings not yet aware of their equal potentiality.

Health warning: this is just another view of a view and therefore to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt and thrown on the rubbish heap of all such concepts, once its purpose has been exhausted. Doubtless Malcolm already knows this.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by LastLegend »

tkp67 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:32 pm Remember friends Nichiren teaches that a true buddha displays the behavior of enduring the minds of others without being separated from them. This mirrors the existence of the world honored one himself.
That’s right.
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by LastLegend »

If Nirvana and Samsara are empty, and Buddhas have no definite bodies, why can’t suffering of sentient beings be considered suffering of Buddhas?
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by LastLegend »

Any particular ideas from Sravakayana inclined views why karma is strictly individual? :lol: given there is no self?
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by Queequeg »

LastLegend wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 3:53 pm If Nirvana and Samsara are empty, and Buddhas have no definite bodies, why can’t suffering of sentient beings be considered suffering of Buddhas?
The first step to analyzing that would be to consider the definition of dukkha. Dukkha is primarily an existential problem - likened to a squeaky wheel. Its a persistent dissatisfaction that marks existence. There is the kind of suffering we associate with physical discomfort, but that's somatic and its causes are clear and generally acute. What the Buddha was concerned with was this nagging sense that life is unsatisfactory. Even when we have good times, they end, and ultimately, we die. The Buddha didn't leave home because he was in physical pain - far from it. He left because he realized as a king he could do nothing about old age, sickness and death.

Then we come to the second noble truth. that Dukkha has a cause - explained through the 12 nidana (12 linked chain of causation). We are thus informed that dukkha arises from ignorance.

The Buddha has overcome ignorance. Having overcome ignorance, he has overcome suffering. (The proof of the Third Noble Truth - Cessation).

He then taught the path to cessation - the Eightfold Path.

Sometimes its good to reframe all this metaphysical stuff within the 4NT - the basis of all of it.

Also. There are no sentient beings. No sentient beings, no suffering.

Emptiness teachings really aren't for everyone.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by Queequeg »

LastLegend wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 3:55 pm Any particular ideas from Sravakayana inclined views why karma is strictly individual? :lol: given there is no self?
Because the karma that brings a particular arrangement of the five aggregates still expresses as a mistaken notion of self. That doesn't mean there actually is a self.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by LastLegend »

We still see that Shakyamuni Buddha, Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara, countless Buddhas are different from sentient beings is because this view resulted from self. Instead of all sentient beings are emanations of Vairochana-Dharmakaya. The difference can’t be established. What established the difference is self.
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9443
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

tkp67 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 1:16 pm Now the question becomes can belief/faith exist without an INHERENT self. I contend the object of belief is the basis for belief/faith as appearing either as possessing an inherent self or being empty while maintaining the four immeasurable.
Do faith / belief occur?
Yes.
Can an inherent self be found?
No.
Mystery solved!
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 4228
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by Minobu »

LastLegend wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:12 am Doubt will visit again and again. Say no to it.
misreading Malcolm's intent got me big time.
problem resolved

Me thinks this issue is good to visit though, worth the tests
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by Queequeg »

LastLegend wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:37 pm We still see that Shakyamuni Buddha, Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara, countless Buddhas are different from sentient beings is because this view resulted from self. Instead of all sentient beings are emanations of Vairochana-Dharmakaya. The difference can’t be established. What established the difference is self.
Whose this self?
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by Malcolm »

tkp67 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:09 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 1:21 pm
tkp67 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 1:16 pm

By this logic suffering doesn't matter because buddhas no longer experience it once liberated.
Buddhas do not even perceive suffering, since they have no impure perceptions. To a buddha, all is buddhahood.
Yet Shakyamuni perceived the sufferings of people well enough to teach them according to cause, capacity and conditions. His existence was not independent of ours.
That's the story you like. This is the one I prefer, Maitreya states in chapter 4 of the Mahāyānottaratantra:

Likewise, without leaving the dharmakāya,
the Muni effortlessly displays emanations
to all fortunate ones
in all the worlds.

Just as Brahma enters the desire realm without leaving his celestial mansion,
and is seen by the devas, and upon his sight, they abandon delight in objects,
the fortunate in all worlds see the tathāgata, who does not move from the dharmakāya,
upon whose sight their taints are permanently removed.

Brahma effortlessly appears [to the devas],
through the power of his past aspirations
and the virtue of the devas,
the self-originated nirmaṇakāya is just the same.


So, you see, the Buddha does not need to perceive the suffering of sentient beings, because he appears to them based on the cause, his past aspirations, and the condition, their virtue.

Having transmigrated, been conceived, born, arrived at his father's palace,
enjoyed amusements, [remained in] isolation, [engaged in ascetic] practice, conquered māra,
attained great awakening, demonstrated the path to the city of peace,
and having shown that, the Muni [now] cannot be seen by the unfortunate.


These deeds arise from the Buddha's past aspirations, but without merit, one cannot see him, or even hear his name.

The text continues:

Just as the heat of the rays of the sun simultaneously
cause lotuses to bloom and jasmine to close,
but the sun gives no thought to the faults and qualities
of the opening and closing of the lotus, the sun of the ārya is the same.

Just as the sun, without thought,
shines its light all at once
and causes the petals of the lotus to blossom
and ripens everything else,
in the same way, without thought,
the sublime dharma light rays of
of the tathāgata sun
enter the disciple lotuses.


So here we see the Buddha has no need to perceive or think about the happiness and suffering of sentient beings, just as the sun pays no regard to the opening and closing of the lotus and jasmine flower. The Buddha Sun shines his light upon all.
If you say it was all a show and his life a mirage you destroy the teaching that buddhahood in human form is attainable.
Again, the above text states in chapter 2:

Because (1) the unimaginable is inexpressible;
because (2) the inexpressible is ultimate;
because (3) the ultimate cannot be analyzed;
because (4) that which cannot be analyzed cannot be inferred;
because (5) that which cannot be inferred is unsurpassable;
because (6) the unsurpassable cannot be categorized [in either samsara or nirvana];
because that which cannot be categorized does not abide [in either samsara or nirvana;
because there is no thought of qualities [of nirvana] or faults [of samsara];
the dharmakāya is inconceivable
because of being subtle through [the first] five reasons;
and the rūpakāya is inconceivable
as it is not an entity because of the sixth.


And in chapter 4:

Showing an appearance like the king of the gods in a jewel;
well-formed like the drum of the gods;
like cloud banks, his pervasive love and wisdom
spreads to the peak of existence of limitless migrating beings;
like Brahma, demonstrating myriad emanations
while never leaving his stainless abode;
like the sun, the light of gnosis always shines;
their minds are like the pure wishfulfilling gem,
the speech of the victors is like an echo, without syllables,
like space, their kāyas are pervasive, immaterial, and permanent;
and like the ground, the stage of buddhahood is the ground
of developing all the medicinal, positive qualities of migrating beings.

It also denies his declaration and desire to make himself equal with all sentient beings by proxy.
There is no such declaration by the Buddha or nor desire in the Buddha.
The lotus was taught as a proof.
You can always prove any story you like.
If it does not hold up to the light of the lotus sutra it is not congruent with his enlightenment.
This is just another story you are telling yourself.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by LastLegend »

Queequeg wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 5:12 pm
LastLegend wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 4:37 pm We still see that Shakyamuni Buddha, Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara, countless Buddhas are different from sentient beings is because this view resulted from self. Instead of all sentient beings are emanations of Vairochana-Dharmakaya. The difference can’t be established. What established the difference is self.
Whose this self?
What you mean?
It’s eye blinking.
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by LastLegend »

Ahh okay I think I understand your question. This self is different from Shakyamuni Buddha, but in essence the difference cannot be established. Those who say they can establish the difference, the question is where?
It’s eye blinking.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by Malcolm »

Nicholas2727 wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 2:50 pmI remember when I was reading Treasures of the Sakya Lineage there was a section that discussed disagreement on this point. If I remember correctly the book said that the Sakya school says Buddha's do not see suffering, although the Gelug's say Buddha's do see suffering. Not sure how other schools stand on the disagreement, but just thought I would include this.
Glad someone is reading the book Lama Migmar and I collaborated upon.

Yes, according to the Gelukpas, Buddhas have concepts and perceptions. But this is very disputed point, and in general all the other schools disagree.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 6:10 pm Yes, according to the Gelukpas, Buddhas have concepts and perceptions. But this is very disputed point, and in general all the other schools disagree.
Is this disagreement similar to the Sthavira/Mahasamghika disagreement about the nature of arhats? I don't expect there to be any direct connection, but it would be interesting if there are parallels.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Locked

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”