Will all eventually become Buddhas?

[Zhen Li]

I don't agree with your rendering of this part of the passage:

ཆོས་སྨྲ་བ་དེ་དག་ཐམས་ཅད་ཀྱི་ལུས་ལ་དེ་བཞིན་གཤེགས་པའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་གནས་སོ

This states very clearly in Tibetan, "The gnosis of the tathāgata abides in the bodies of all those dharmabhāṇakas."

It does not say the the gnosis of the tathāgata abides in the bodies of all sentient beings. This being so, I reject your argument.

That's not a matter of agreeing with my rendering, it is an accurate translation of Dharmarakṣa's Song dynasty translation: 一切眾生皆有如來勝智在於身中
The Tibetan version agrees with the Ratnakuta version: 敢佛弟子班宣經典: "When the disciples of the Buddha venture to recite the sūtras..." though the rest deviates in a few ways.

There are multiple layers of development in the sūtra, as I demonstrate in the introduction. If you reject an argument simply because your tradition's text says differently, then you are relying purely on argumentum ad verecundiam and are simply falling into the criticism that you levelled against Astus for using quotes:

No more deluded than imagining that there are Buddhas and sentient beings “in here somewhere”

Such an assumption was meant to be avoided by the subsequent quotes. Another one on that specifically:

Quotes are boring, unless couched in reasonings which they support. Proof texts are not arguments.they are to be used to support arguments. You can’t just imitate the words of old masters. You have to use your own words, which show your own understanding.

Actually, we can talk about the Dharma in various ways. This does not have to be an argument where you have to try to defeat people every time, sometimes it is worth taking the time to try to understand other people's points of view when they diverge from your own. Part of that might involve incorporating quotes or relying on scriptural tradition.

The ultimate perspective is that no buddha, sentient being, liberation, bondage, or buddhakāyas can be established at all. Buddha, sentient being, liberation, bondage, kāyas, gnoses, etc. are all just conventional designations and do not refer to anything real. Why? Your sūtra itself states it as follows:

Then it shouldn't be such a surprise to suggest that all beings can attain buddhahood. Again, this is just a conventional statement, but the point should be clear. This is why the sūtras clearly state that all will inevitably be buddhas.

Here's what I'm taking away from this - both this Mahayana view you describe and the view Malcolm is describing are dealing with these teachings as literal truths.

I don't take them that way. When I say these are edifying stories, I actually mean that, literally. Edifying. Stories. They're guidelines directing us on the path to awakening and away from wrong views. When they become dogma and cease having the function of edifying, they become baggage to be dropped.

When I sit and try to observe my mind, whether every amoeba eventually awakens is quite irrelevant. Maybe there comes a point on the path where this does come to matter... I don't see it yet. These stories do, however frame the way I ought to address and interact with beings in my day to day activity. I do feel better at the end of the day when I've been able to conduct myself in a respectful way through my daily activities. Having a clear conscience helps to cultivate concentration and to carry out insight practice.

I see where you are coming from. But without the larger web of meaning that is conventionally structured with the attainments of Buddhahood and so forth, it is hard to see how you can escape nihilism and the Dharma-lite of merely improving day to day life. More meaningful bodhisattva practice and aspirations lose their value. Even on the conventional level (i.e. on the "story" level), all beings do become Buddhas. They do so because of what holds true on the ultimate level—that there is no buddha, no being, no bodhisattva, etc.

[Malcolm]

There are multiple layers of development in the sūtra, as I demonstrate in the introduction. If you reject an argument simply because your tradition's text says differently, then you are relying purely on argumentum ad verecundiam and are simply falling into the criticism that you levelled against Astus for using quotes:

When someone’s argument depends on a citation which does not correspond to their premise, the entire argument can be regarded as a failure.

You might think your argument hangs together on the basis of what you’ve judged an accurate rendering of the Chinese, but since the Tibetan translation, likely rendered in reference to the Chinese translation, is at such a stark variance, I can’t accept your argument on the face of such a stark contrast. You will note I did not assert your rendering entirely wrong, merely that I consider this passage invalid based on a version I consider more authoritative.

[Malcolm]

Then it shouldn't be such a surprise to suggest that all beings can attain buddhahood.

All beings can attain buddhahood, that does not entail that all beings will.

[Zhen Li]

There are multiple layers of development in the sūtra, as I demonstrate in the introduction. If you reject an argument simply because your tradition's text says differently, then you are relying purely on argumentum ad verecundiam and are simply falling into the criticism that you levelled against Astus for using quotes:

When someone’s argument depends on a citation which does not correspond to their premise, the entire argument can be regarded as a failure.

You might think your argument hangs together on the basis of what you’ve judged an accurate rendering of the Chinese, but since the Tibetan translation, likely rendered in reference to the Chinese translation, is at such a stark variance, I can’t accept your argument on the face of such a stark contrast. You will note I did not assert your rendering wrong, merely that I consider invalid based on a version I consider more authoritative.

Scriptural authority is a strange thing, but at the end of the day, unless we are engaging in critical philology, it is a matter of choice. Faith is a choice to have a life that is ordered and gives structure to our practice and lives—which kind of harkens back to my reply to Queequeg. You choose what version you prefer. However, even if the text is specifying disciples who preach the sūtras, the implication actually does not change. All preaching and the prior study and understanding underwent by Dharma-preachers, is done through the Buddha's power and by their wisdom which dwells in their bodies. All beings can fall into this umbrella—looking at the model the sūtra gives of being presented with the Dharma through the Tathāgata's body and speech as essentially being transformations occurring within beings' own minds, wafted by their own karma, all Buddha-activity is within all beings and it actually doesn't depend upon one's status as a teacher or not. Obviously, that would heighten it.

Then it shouldn't be such a surprise to suggest that all beings can attain buddhahood.

All beings can attain buddhahood, that does not entail that all beings will.

All beings will—this is also supported by the sūtras. Given infinite time, there are no beings that will not come to attain buddhahood, that would be an inconceivability.

[Malcolm]

All beings will—this is also supported by the sūtras. Given infinite time, there are no beings that will not come to attain buddhahood, that would be an inconceivability.

There will always be some being who has not attained buddhahood.

You’d be better off asserting Lonngchenpa’s resolution: primordial liberation. It’s a copout, but it’s easier, and in fact, more sensible.

[Miorita]

In the Tibetan tradition this is understood to be an impossible aspiration, though meritorious. For example, the Buddha, as Shantideva points out, perfected generosity not because he could actually relieve the poverty of all sentient beings, but because he wished to—the merit of such aspirations exceeds the fact that they cannot possibly be achieved. And it goes without saying, Buddhas cannot liberate anyone. The proof of this is that there are still sentient beings. No Buddha with the capacity to liberate sentient beings would ever leave so many in samsara. One can only liberate oneself from this samsara. No Buddha or bodhisattva can do it for you. There is no choice but to practice a path taught by the Buddha, and without a precious human birth, that choice isn’t even available.

This is conflating the time of aspiration with the time it takes to liberate beings. The time it takes is also infinite. Buddha activity is continuous and infinite. From the perspective of an ordinary being it will appear like nothing is being done, but actually, awakening activity is continually being wrought upon one unawares.

Again, the idea that one is liberating oneself is from the ordinary perspective. From the ultimate perspective, all hearing, understanding, and practice are performed by the Buddha, who dwells within the bodies of all beings. This is taught in Chapter 1 of the Tathāgataguhya.

From the ultimate perspective there is no Buddha, sentient being, liberation, or bondage. There isn’t even a dharmakaya.

Did you have in mind a specific passage from your translation?

Indeed, there isn't a dharmakaya.

But if there was one, teachers would seize the moment to bestow empowerments on sentient beings.

[Zhen Li]

All beings will—this is also supported by the sūtras. Given infinite time, there are no beings that will not come to attain buddhahood, that would be an inconceivability.

There will always be some being who has not attained buddhahood.

You’d be better off asserting Lonngchenpa’s resolution: primordial liberation. It’s a copout, but it’s easier, and in fact, more sensible.

I think I see where people are having trouble with this idea. They think that "all will inevitably attain become buddhas," as meaning that the world will eventually empty out and there will be no deluded beings left. Since there are infinite beings, yes, there will always be some beings who haven't attained Buddhahood. But they just keep getting liberated—even though each being takes an inconceivable number of great kalpas to get there.

I think Lonngchenpa's resolution makes sense but the question is more on the level of conventional reality and so deserves a conventional answer.

[Aemilius]

Yes, this idea does serve an edificatory purpose, but it is also stated as a fact that all beings will attain buddhahood, it's just a part of Mahāyāna doctrine. And yes, if beings cannot attain bodhi, then I think bodhicitta is undermined. One vows to awaken all beings, including icchantikas. Of course, as you suggest with regard to bodhi, upon awakening, one also awakens all beings. So there are multiple layers of meaning to this idea.

This is not in contradiction to the idea that all will eventually become buddhas. Yes, latent beings will manifest. They will too become buddhas, and the ones after them, and the ones after them, and the ones after them, etc.

Beings are infinite, I vow to liberate them all.

This is what it means to be a bodhisattva. Infinite means infinite. Liberate means liberate. It's so simple and yet it's beyond calculative thought.

If you take the attitude that thousand billion animals, insects and microbes have to attain the human body and then learn the Dharma, that is just ecologically and biologically impossible. Or there would be thousand times more new insects, animals and microbes to fill in the hole in the ecosystem.

It's just an infinite regress, they keep coming and they keep getting liberated. Also, you are limiting your imagination to just this planet.

There are several things here. It is unhealthy and unbuddhistic attitude to say that "bodhisattvas can do..." You are moving the responsibility away from your self, which is not good. What are you, as a bodhisattva, doing? What kind of contact and experience do you have with animals and insects?

From own limited experience, limited because there are so many different species and individual animals, I have found that animals, for example certain kind of rodents, think that they are the centre of the universe, just like humans do. Most animals don't consider humans to have consciousness or wisdom. They think it is a great good fortune having born as a true rodent, squirrel, fox or the animal of their extremely fortunate species.

Infinite regress will not do. I man sure reality is something else, reality is otherwise. The mainstream buddhism will not change its habitual perceptions. That cannot be expected.
Although there have been some individuals in the history of Dharma, who have had very different views and experiences about animals, that is not totally nonexistent. Certain visionary has written a handbook or dictionary of bird languages.

[Astus]

The condition for buddhahood is the twofold accumulation that must be completed by each being. On the causes to begin accumulating merit and wisdom on the Great Vehicle Gampopa says:

'This family can awaken through freedom from unfavorable contributory causes and through the support of favorable conditions. If the opposites occur, then they cannot awaken.
There are four unfavorable conditions: being born in unfavorable circumstances, having no habitual tendency toward enlightenment, entering into wrong conditions, and being heavily shrouded by the obscurations. There are two favorable conditions: the outer condition of a teacher, and the inner condition of a mind with the proper desire for the precious Dharma and so forth.'
(Jewel Ornament of Liberation, p 54)

Since there is no guarantee that all beings necessarily obtain the favourable causes, there is no assurance of all attaining buddhahood.

[Zhen Li]

There are several things here. It is unhealthy and unbuddhistic attitude to say that "bodhisattvas can do..." You are moving the responsibility away from your self, which is not good. What are you, as a bodhisattva, doing? What kind of contact and experience do you have with animals and insects?

From own limited experience, limited because there are so many different species and individual animals, I have found that animals, for example certain kind of rodents, think that they are the centre of the universe, just like humans do. Most animals don't consider humans to have consciousness or wisdom. They think it is a great good fortune having born as a true rodent, squirrel, fox or the animal of their extremely fortunate species.

Infinite regress will not do. I man sure reality is something else, reality is otherwise. The mainstream buddhism will not change its habitual perceptions. That cannot be expected.
Although there have been some individuals in the history of Dharma, who have had very different views and experiences about animals, that is not totally nonexistent. Certain visionary has written a handbook or dictionary of bird languages.

Here's another thing that I think might be causing some friction in this conversation. It is not that all beings in their current state will attain Buddhahood. They have to attain at least a human birth first to enter the path.

Since there is no guarantee that all beings necessarily obtain the favourable causes, there is no assurance of all attaining buddhahood.

Every being will come into the state wherein they will encounter Buddhahood. So, Buddhism solves Nietzsche's problem of eternal recurrence (whereby, because of the nature of eternity, we will be doomed to come back and live the exact same life an infinite number of times) because all beings will inevitably come to the conditions whereby they fulfill the bodhisattva path. Heinrich Heine expresses this situations as follows:

[T]ime is infinite, but the things in time, the concrete bodies, are finite. They may indeed disperse into the smallest particles; but these particles, the atoms, have their determinate numbers, and the numbers of the configurations which, all of themselves, are formed out of them is also determinate. Now, however long a time may pass, according to the eternal laws governing the combinations of this eternal play of repetition, all configurations which have previously existed on this earth must yet meet, attract, repulse, kiss, and corrupt each other again...

So, yes, we will have to relive the same lives almost an infinite number of times until we attain Buddhahood. Because of the nature of eternity and infinite arrangements, every being will come to have the arrangement of conditions that you speak about, Astus.

[Astus]

Because of the nature of eternity and infinite arrangements, every being will come to have the arrangement of conditions that you speak about, Astus.

Samsara has no beginning (SN 15), therefore the infinite arrangements is already covered by that. In other words, just because something could happen does not mean it eventually happens.

[Malcolm]

. Since there are infinite beings, yes, there will always be some beings who haven't attained Buddhahood.

Then it is axiomatic, some beings will never attain buddhahood.

[Zhen Li]

Because of the nature of eternity and infinite arrangements, every being will come to have the arrangement of conditions that you speak about, Astus.

Samsara has no beginning (SN 15), therefore the infinite arrangements is already covered by that. In other words, just because something could happen does not mean it eventually happens.

The idea that all beings will eventually become Buddhas is a Mahāyāna teaching not covered by the Śrāvakayāna texts.

[Malcolm]

Because of the nature of eternity and infinite arrangements, every being will come to have the arrangement of conditions that you speak about, Astus.

Samsara has no beginning (SN 15), therefore the infinite arrangements is already covered by that. In other words, just because something could happen does not mean it eventually happens.

The idea that all beings will eventually become Buddhas is a Mahāyāna teaching not covered by the Śrāvakayāna texts.

It’s one of those things one needs not take literally, since certainly there are a number of Mahayana opinions on the subject.

[Queequeg]

Here's what I'm taking away from this - both this Mahayana view you describe and the view Malcolm is describing are dealing with these teachings as literal truths.

I don't take them that way. When I say these are edifying stories, I actually mean that, literally. Edifying. Stories. They're guidelines directing us on the path to awakening and away from wrong views. When they become dogma and cease having the function of edifying, they become baggage to be dropped.

When I sit and try to observe my mind, whether every amoeba eventually awakens is quite irrelevant. Maybe there comes a point on the path where this does come to matter... I don't see it yet. These stories do, however frame the way I ought to address and interact with beings in my day to day activity. I do feel better at the end of the day when I've been able to conduct myself in a respectful way through my daily activities. Having a clear conscience helps to cultivate concentration and to carry out insight practice.

I see where you are coming from. But without the larger web of meaning that is conventionally structured with the attainments of Buddhahood and so forth, it is hard to see how you can escape nihilism and the Dharma-lite of merely improving day to day life. More meaningful bodhisattva practice and aspirations lose their value. Even on the conventional level (i.e. on the "story" level), all beings do become Buddhas. They do so because of what holds true on the ultimate level—that there is no buddha, no being, no bodhisattva, etc.

Of course you can't see how its possible to escape nihilism or Dharma-lite - because this is not the path you tread. I would hope you are not actually questioning the path I tread, questioning my Buddhist bona fides. I realize "the Middle Way" is often used as an excuse, but that's what it is - the Middle Way. The Middle Way as I understand is not an eclectic path where one takes what is comfortable; in my understanding, it is a profoundly difficult path because there are no hard and fast codes to live by. It requires one to navigate immediate uncertainties where rules are helpful but not guaranteed. I think it requires a more difficult practice of the ideals - because they need to be applied, adapted and improvised, moment to moment.

As I explained, observing the mind (practice for oneself) does not require immediate and constant thought that every cockroach awaken; such practices do however prepare one to have a present disposition of compassion toward beings, and hopefully, a modicum of wisdom to help them (practice for others). As I understand it, its as described in the Lotus where the Buddha appears to each sentient, individually, according to their capacity and needs, or in the Suramgama where each Shakra is given an opportunity to personally give the Buddha a throne and feel the pride and joy of being able to do so. "Beings are innumerable - I vow to save them all." As I understand, when we're "saving" beings, its not some abstract idea about leading all beings to awakening - its the immediate real life interactions we have moment to moment, heart to heart, incessantly, underlined by the abiding determination to perfectly embody compassion, love, sympathetic joy and equanimity. Samsara is emptied one sentient being at a time - the number of beings doesn't matter. Its not the grand ideas espoused from high that most impact people for the better; IME, the most impactful, positive experiences people have is when another sees THEM and extends themselves to them. Theory is great, but its the care and concern that my teachers have had for me and my unique, individual pain that has most mattered.

Real life is messy and indeterminate. Dogma only goes so far. Sometimes, people don't need a grand sermon on the highest teaching; sometimes they just need a hand.

[Malcolm]

Real life is messy and indeterminate. Dogma only goes so far. Sometimes, people don't need a grand sermon on the highest teaching; sometimes they just need a hand.

We can’t save anyone. We can benefit others through pacifying their fear, satisfying their material needs, or teaching Dharma. But the last requires active participation on the part of the person to be benefited.

[Astus]

The idea that all beings will eventually become Buddhas is a Mahāyāna teaching not covered by the Śrāvakayāna texts.

But why would all eventually become a buddha? The reasoning that "if it can happen, it will happen" does not stand. That all beings have buddha-nature is not a sufficient condition either.

[Queequeg]

Real life is messy and indeterminate. Dogma only goes so far. Sometimes, people don't need a grand sermon on the highest teaching; sometimes they just need a hand.

We can’t save anyone. We can benefit others through pacifying their fear, satisfying their material needs, or teaching Dharma. But the last requires active participation on the part of the person to be benefited.

It took a while for me to understand this. On teaching dharma, though, you, Zhen-li, and many others -you guys are making dharma more easily accessible by overcoming the obstacle of foreign languages. Active participation is precluded without this outreach effort which I point out is offered at least to a certain extent, unsolicited. We can conceptualize it any number of ways - would a person who encounters your translations have been disposed to it regardless of your activity? Or did you in fact plant a seed? May you fellas live a long time and continue to benefit living beings with your work.

[Malcolm]

The idea that all beings will eventually become Buddhas is a Mahāyāna teaching not covered by the Śrāvakayāna texts.

But why would all eventually become a buddha? The reasoning that "if it can happen, it will happen" does not stand. That all beings have buddha-nature is not a sufficient condition either.

Some people conceive of tathagatagarbha as a kind of uncompounded agent that propels one inevitably to buddhahood.

[Zhen Li]

The idea that all beings will eventually become Buddhas is a Mahāyāna teaching not covered by the Śrāvakayāna texts.

But why would all eventually become a buddha? The reasoning that "if it can happen, it will happen" does not stand. That all beings have buddha-nature is not a sufficient condition either.

Some people conceive of tathagatagarbha as a kind of uncompounded agent that propels one inevitably to buddhahood.

I am not the one who wrote the sūtras, I'm just interpreting them. But if you think about it, it makes sense. It is not that "if it can happen, it will happen," but that everything that can happen, will happen. You don't have to agree, that's normal. Buddha-nature is a necessary but not sufficient condition. That doesn't mean the other necessary conditions by nature won't come to be. It also doesn't mean that in one's day-to-day experience one isn't going to feel like one is making choices to move one along.

As I understand, when we're "saving" beings, its not some abstract idea about leading all beings to awakening - its the immediate real life interactions we have moment to moment, heart to heart, incessantly, underlined by the abiding determination to perfectly embody compassion, love, sympathetic joy and equanimity. Samsara is emptied one sentient being at a time - the number of beings doesn't matter.

This is just being discussed because it's the topic of the thread. I'm not trying to say that people need to agree with the idea or even know about it in order to benefit from the path. Like I said in reply to Astus and Malcolm, in one's day-to-day experience, these kinds of perspectives or metaphysics don't make a difference.

It’s one of those things one needs not take literally, since certainly there are a number of Mahayana opinions on the subject.

One need not take anything literally. If it doesn't make sense in your structure of how you understand the Dharma, then discard it. It makes sense to me and I think it is fair for me to give the idea a fair hearing. I am just trying to make sure something important isn't thrown out in earnest attempts to try to come to terms with these ideas.