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.
PuerAzaelis wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 5:51 pm
The Diamond Sutra appears to deconstruct the whole idea:
“Subhūti, what do you think, can the Tathāgata be seen by his physical marks?”
“No, World Honored One, the Tathāgata cannot be seen by his physical marks. And why? It is because the physical marks are spoken of by the Tathāgata as no physical marks.”
The Buddha said to Subhūti, “All with marks is deceptive. If you can see all marks as no marks then you see the Tathāgata.”
The DS says that one cannot see the Buddha through 32\80 marks. This is not that these marks are absent on nirmanakaya or sambhogakaya level. Rupa is always mundane so to see dharmakaya one must be a buddha.
thomaslaw wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 8:39 am
The 32 marks are Mahayana teachings or not?
Marks are shared. The notion of Buddha in SE Asia is very close to mahayana (see "Buddha in Theravada Buddhism" by TOSHIICHI ENDO).
Berry wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:48 am
.
I hope its ok to post this here, but there's an article "On the 32 marks" by Bhikkhu Sujato in which he says :
There is plenty of incidental detail in the Suttas and Vinaya that show that the Buddha was normal in appearance, so any freakish or supernatural interpretation of the marks must be wrong. Leaving a few of the bizarre elements aside, most of the marks are straightforward signs of physical beauty: black hair, white teeth, gold skin, and the like.
Some theravadins are too pragmatic actually. There are visions of 1000-spoked wheel the Buddha's footprints in the Pali Canon for a moment))) Among other things these signs indicate a perfect appearance from skillful deeds. Bodhisattvas are determined by these characteristics as ven. Ananda Maitreya said. But in other universes these marks differ.
Simon E. wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:17 pm
I might be way off here thomaslaw, but I think you may be attempting to understand the Mahayana through the lens of the Theravada.
If that is correct it is a recipe for confusion. The Mahayana has to be understood on its own terms.
I am concerned the fact that both Theravada and Mahayana texts do not actually record the Buddha as saying that he has the marks.
Simon E. wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:17 pm
I might be way off here thomaslaw, but I think you may be attempting to understand the Mahayana through the lens of the Theravada.
If that is correct it is a recipe for confusion. The Mahayana has to be understood on its own terms.
I am concerned the fact that both Theravada and Mahayana texts do not actually record the Buddha as saying that he has the marks.
Śrāvakayāna Buddhavacana from DN:
These, brethren, are the Thirty-two Marks of the Superman, wherewith endowed he has two careers that lie open to him and none other: that of the Lord of the Wheel and that of Buddha Supreme.
Whether or not he "had" them, he is recorded as saying he did.
Then, the monks sang this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and rots.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward. (T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Simon E. wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:17 pm
I might be way off here thomaslaw, but I think you may be attempting to understand the Mahayana through the lens of the Theravada.
If that is correct it is a recipe for confusion. The Mahayana has to be understood on its own terms.
I am concerned the fact that both Theravada and Mahayana texts do not actually record the Buddha as saying that he has the marks.
Śrāvakayāna Buddhavacana from DN:
These, brethren, are the Thirty-two Marks of the Superman, wherewith endowed he has two careers that lie open to him and none other: that of the Lord of the Wheel and that of Buddha Supreme.
Whether or not he "had" them, he is recorded as saying he did.
And even more important is understanding what he meant by it.
We abide nowhere. We possess nothing.
~Chatral Rinpoche
Simon E. wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:17 pm
I might be way off here thomaslaw, but I think you may be attempting to understand the Mahayana through the lens of the Theravada.
If that is correct it is a recipe for confusion. The Mahayana has to be understood on its own terms.
I am concerned the fact that both Theravada and Mahayana texts do not actually record the Buddha as saying that he has the marks.
Śrāvakayāna Buddhavacana from DN:
These, brethren, are the Thirty-two Marks of the Superman, wherewith endowed he has two careers that lie open to him and none other: that of the Lord of the Wheel and that of Buddha Supreme.
Whether or not he "had" them, he is recorded as saying he did.
The Buddha in the text does not say he is the Superman.
I am concerned the fact that both Theravada and Mahayana texts do not actually record the Buddha as saying that he has the marks.
Śrāvakayāna Buddhavacana from DN:
These, brethren, are the Thirty-two Marks of the Superman, wherewith endowed he has two careers that lie open to him and none other: that of the Lord of the Wheel and that of Buddha Supreme.
Whether or not he "had" them, he is recorded as saying he did.
The Buddha in the text does not say he is the Superman.
The Buddha in the text does say that the career of the Buddha Supreme is open to the Superman and none other.
Then, the monks sang this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and rots.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward. (T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These, brethren, are the Thirty-two Marks of the Superman, wherewith endowed he has two careers that lie open to him and none other: that of the Lord of the Wheel and that of Buddha Supreme.
Whether or not he "had" them, he is recorded as saying he did.
The Buddha in the text does not say he is the Superman.
The Buddha in the text does say that the career of the Buddha Supreme is open to the Superman and none other.
But the Buddha in the text does not say: I am the Superman.
But the Buddha in the text does not say: I am the Superman.
Are you trolling?
No, I am not.
He literally needs the Buddha to say "I, bhiksus, am a/the superman". He doesn't understand that the Buddha says that only those with the 32 marks of a superman can be a Buddha or a Wheel-turning Monarch. He needs those literal words: "I, bhiksus, am a/the superman" or he doesn't get it, it seems.
Then, the monks sang this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and rots.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward. (T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
He literally needs the Buddha to say "I, bhiksus, am a/the superman". He doesn't understand that the Buddha says that only those with the 32 marks of a superman can be a Buddha or a Wheel-turning Monarch. He needs those literal words: "I, bhiksus, am a/the superman" or he doesn't get it, it seems.
Correct. The Buddha never in the texts says he has the 32 marks.
He literally needs the Buddha to say "I, bhiksus, am a/the superman". He doesn't understand that the Buddha says that only those with the 32 marks of a superman can be a Buddha or a Wheel-turning Monarch. He needs those literal words: "I, bhiksus, am a/the superman" or he doesn't get it, it seems.
Correct. The Buddha never in the texts says he has the 32 marks.
The Buddha also never says he has hands, feet, or a brain.
He literally needs the Buddha to say "I, bhiksus, am a/the superman". He doesn't understand that the Buddha says that only those with the 32 marks of a superman can be a Buddha or a Wheel-turning Monarch. He needs those literal words: "I, bhiksus, am a/the superman" or he doesn't get it, it seems.
Correct. The Buddha never in the texts says he has the 32 marks.
The Buddha also never says he has hands, feet, or a brain.
When the Buddha talks about himself, he typically uses the third person, e.g. "The Tathagata is X." However, in plenty of texts, such as the Lalitavistara or Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, the Buddha discusses himself having the marks, among many other important features.
It is also not worth generalizing what is a Theravāda or Mahāyāna view. Doctrinally, there are different layers of teaching in the Mahāyāna. On one level, the Buddha has the 32 marks, on another level, the Buddha is signless. In the Theravāda Pāli texts, there are simply different strata of texts with regards to the Buddha's appearance—in regards to them, this is less of a doctrinal question and more of a philological question.
However, on the cultural level, the question as to what is accepted by modern Mahāyānists or Theravādans will yield you even different results. A great number of Theravādans are pretty protestant on such matters, and will hold that the Buddha could only have appeared like a regular human from his time and place. Many Mahāyānists would agree with that and never have heard of the three kāyas, and so forth.
So, it's important to specify whether we are asking about texts, specific or general communities of practitioners, or individual opinions and perspectives from users here on Dharma-wheel. Each will yield different answers.
He literally needs the Buddha to say "I, bhiksus, am a/the superman". He doesn't understand that the Buddha says that only those with the 32 marks of a superman can be a Buddha or a Wheel-turning Monarch. He needs those literal words: "I, bhiksus, am a/the superman" or he doesn't get it, it seems.
Correct. The Buddha never in the texts says he has the 32 marks.
The Buddha also never says he has hands, feet, or a brain.
Correct. But what is your point? Do you mean the Buddha is not a human being?
