So are Sutras really from the Buddha, or just fiction

[Malcolm]

Was he reading at the time, did he remember a time in his past life when he was reading or writing texts, Malcom no disrespect to you but i think your backing yoruself into a corner here. Im not denying or have denied that shatras play an role in the dharma traditions, but bodhi is not preceded by texts or even dependant on it, that would be insight and insight is not intellectual or textual understanding, that is not samma dhitti. I thought this was obvious. Texts play a role in preservation or lineages and memory and what is more important than texts is oral or shabda pramanas, and those pramanas should lead to the mind being silent and empty of all views.

I gather you are not familiar with concept of oral texts. It’s obvious that sutras and tantras are recorded buddhavacana.

Oral transmissions is not the same as the texts or reading from texts as its done by most people, oral traditions is a living tradition , all shabda ( sound ) pramanas are from akash, kash means visible a is means without, akash is source of sound vak, they are invisible and is invisible to ordinary perception's…

Now you just making shit up.

[tkp67]

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.

There are entire chapters in the Lotus Sutra titled "skill in means," "phantom city," the lifetime of the tathagata. The nearly the entire premise of the Lotus Sutra is that it is all show of skill-in-means to lead people to awakening. How then is Malcolm's claim that this is the case going to destroy the very teaching of the Lotus sutra? QQ does a much better job of responding to your posts. Perhaps you should read him and respond to his posts as you tend to imply that while I may read the LS I don't grasp it.

That skill in means provisional and the phantom city an exposition of provision. Evaluating the sutra by the first eight chapters alone is not the complete lotus sutra.

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

Both provision and true aspect sounds like you are talking of two separate things. What is the Buddha's "ordinary existence" and what is the unstated, but implied, "extra-ordinary existence?"

Both provision and true aspects exists in all phenomenon at all times. Why? Because one's own mind manifests the realms upon inspection of phenomenon based on one's own capacity, causes and conditions. A core teaching of the lotus school and thus Nichiren is the mind manifests the ten realms but lacks the understanding they are inseparable from one another. Mutual possession of the ten realms is absolutely representative of Shakyamuni's complete enlightenment. It is understood through his behavior as a human being including all of his teachings during his historical lifetime.

In context to Shakyamuni's existence. Outer appearances was of a ordinary existence. His enlightenment had transcended the ordinary while experiencing ordinary existence.

If one studies all of the buddha's teachings is becomes apparent he teaches separation for the benefit of separating self from the unconditioned state. This is for the benefit of humans who experience all of this in one entity.

If one studies the workings of one's own mind it becomes quickly apparent the mind can understand what is impossible for the body (life) to experience. For example my mind can understand the need for oxygen even though my body can't live without it. It doesn't experience lack of oxygen because I think of it. It cannot operate without oxygen but it can operate around the concept as if the body understood what it has not necessarily experienced.

One of the more difficult obstacles in reading the LS is understanding what parts are derived from the mind and what parts equate to normal existence. The later is part a gateway to the former being liberated. When Nichiren says read the lotus with one's body he is saying observe the law through the lens of one's own life.

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

I really don't understand what you ar trying to convey here.

He displayed the four immeasurables from the treasure tower of his own ordinary existence. His actions as a human being can be understood as the catalyst to all of his teachings spreading across the world as we know them now.

The question to ask is which of these buddhist teachings practices here exists independent of his ordinary existence?

I would welcome correction in this manner.
I have yet to find it.

QQ has very patiently and carefully responded several times in this thread outlining where there seem to be misunderstandings. I entreaty you to read his posts carefully.

Majority of the time he withdraws from Nichiren's position to tentai's inferior position on the manner. The highest teaching accommodates the lowest capacity. If the teaching is not accessible to the lowest capacity is does not fulfill the sutra. Nichiren was clear on this designation. It expresses the compassion the buddha possessed and fulfilled shakyamuni's deceleration in propagating the sutra.

The buddha was clear about attachment to form and dharma across many teachings. However in good faith I will read all posts and honestly evaluate my own understanding for lack.

However you accused me of lacking an understanding of the louts and could not establish it. That was the point I was responding to.

[LastLegend]

Inconceivable Bodhi/samadhi and appearance means just that: there is no function to know it to describe it. There is no trick or metaphor here...very clear and straightforward.

[tkp67]

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).

I never said he was dependent. I said he did not exist independently. Distilling duality from perspective is not transcendent, not the middle way.

One can conceive anything but what is provable and what is not. What aligns with the purpose of the teaching and what does not. Now if what I said was not meant to evoke dualism what is the interpretation to be had?

I don't believe I deviate from the concept of transcending duality yet it is often the blank that others fill in my statements. Whose mind does this? I would like to know so ownership of such things can be realized.

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 rducing 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.

Where did I reify such things as irreducible? There is mundane, ordinary and unenlightened view of all things while the same phenomenon possesses the rest of the realms. including the true aspect. Just because all phenomenon are already lacking self and marked with tranquil existence means that all people perceive it that way. If they did everyone would be a bodhisattva mahasattva, non regressing if I recall the sutra correctly.

That is the point that cannot be disproven because it is the true aspect of reality thus the ultimate teaching is the mutual possession of the ten realms.

One provision can see these things as separate that is the whole point of the LS and thus Nichiren's teachings which in no way dishonor any practitioner or patriarch that came before him. Rather he puts all teachings into relative context with both the ordinary existence of mankind while maintaining complete perspective regarding all buddhas enlightenment form the three times and ten directions.

[LastLegend]

I quoted that Sutra many times already: no knower means nothing there to know. If there is known, there is already knower whether this knower is fine as dust motes that can’t be detected. It’s the trace of ignorance. We can argue that knows is not a knower...but nature doesn’t know doesn’t conceive.

To simply differentiate or recognize is different from the whole mental process of: differentiation or recognition.

[Malcolm]

Do you believe a literal belief in the miracles in the sutras or at least the possibility of such miracles happening are conductive to an open mind that leads closer to liberation? Like say, circling the Buddha for thousands of kalpas, or the World-Honored One performing a miracle of picking up the entire multitude of Bodhisattvas in His hand to give them a Transference of His Enlightenment in the Lotus Sutra. There is reality, but what creates limits for us in this world? And how do you view the Pure Land of Holy Eagle Peak?

Beliefs are concepts. Concepts and buddhahood are mutually exclusive.

Gridrakuta is a place you can visit in India.

Termas happen. That's a fact.

Sure, termas are revealed. That's what all Mahāyāna sūtras and tantras are, treasure revelations.

[Natan]

Beliefs are concepts. Concepts and buddhahood are mutually exclusive.

Gridrakuta is a place you can visit in India.

Termas happen. That's a fact.

Sure, termas are revealed. That's what all Mahāyāna sūtras and tantras are, treasure revelations.

Right, so the revealings are not just stories and concepts

[Malcolm]

I never said he was dependent. I said he did not exist independently.

An entity that does not exist independently is dependent. So you just contradicted yourself. Bravo.

[tkp67]

I never said he was dependent. I said he did not exist independently.

An entity that does not exist independently is dependent. So you just contradicted yourself. Bravo.

One cannot compare provision to the true aspect directly because the true aspect defies designations or distinctions. The true aspect is not verbalized but understood between buddha THUS the contradiction is an echo of your own perception. I am not saying the buddha was dependent either. The buddha's true nature was transcendent and since this capacity is always latent in sapient life it is always potentially present.

Parsing his existence from the fabric of enlightenment defies many buddhist teachings.

Nichiren doesn't do this, he transcends all difference to unify the teachings under the true aspect. This is because the true aspect is the one source.

This is why the sutra, the enlightenment and the existences of the buddhas are inseparable and why Nichiren declares all buddhas are enlightened by this sutra calling all provision a phantom, a mirage, a delusion, a dream.

I hope this helps.

[Queequeg]

I hope this helps.

Not at all.

[Malcolm]

I never said he was dependent. I said he did not exist independently.

An entity that does not exist independently is dependent. So you just contradicted yourself. Bravo.

I hope this helps.

Stop being disingenuous and just admit you contradicted yourself. Any other answer is just the same kind of dissembling you engaged in here.

[Natan]

An entity that does not exist independently is dependent. So you just contradicted yourself. Bravo.

I hope this helps.

Stop being disingenuous and just admit you contradicted yourself. Any other answer is just the same kind of dissembling you engaged in here.

You are similarly guilty. Earlier you said buddhas don't see suffering only Buddhahood. If that's true they also don't see interdependence or impermanence bc suffering is interdependent and impermanent. If a buddha is omniscient obviously he sees these things, but sees them for what the are. The sutra be and tantra are similarly interdependent. The content is factual it doesn't mean that they are symbolic cartoon puppet shows. Whether they were actually said by Buddha himself is impossible to know. But if you take the example of like the termas that lead to rainbow bodies then obviously we've got evidence of Buddha Dharma coming from outside Buddhas own lips. Maybe Buddha did teach from some heaven. Maybe Tara wrote it down. Maybe if these things do lead to rainbow bodies etc the were said as described therein. Nagarjuna pulled Prajnaparamita out if a lake. Lord Jigten Sumgon was taught by 21 Taras. They weren't just symbolic cartoon puppet shows they said something that was efficacious for delivering liberation. Also the point of symbolism in reference to buddhadarma tantra is being greatly misunderstood here it's not like a symbolism in poetry. It's more like a tool that is efficacious for illuminating the kayas. And since the kayas are self-liminating it's not differentiated from the Kaya. If we're trying to be logical it's probably best to understand it as an extra dimension and that without this extra dimension then everything we say about it is missing the context of that dimension and therefore misses the entire point of what that dimension is allowing us to see. Otherwise relying always on Madhyamaka where nothing is true is misleading and one-sided.

[LastLegend]

I never said he was dependent. I said he did not exist independently.

An entity that does not exist independently is dependent. So you just contradicted yourself. Bravo.

One cannot compare provision to the true aspect directly because the true aspect defies designations or distinctions. The true aspect is not verbalized but understood between buddha THUS the contradiction is an echo of your own perception. I am not saying the buddha was dependent either. The buddha's true nature was transcendent and since this capacity is always latent in sapient life it is always potentially present.

Parsing his existence from the fabric of enlightenment defies many buddhist teachings.

Nichiren doesn't do this, he transcends all difference to unify the teachings under the true aspect. This is because the true aspect is the one source.

This is why the sutra, the enlightenment and the existences of the buddhas are inseparable and why Nichiren declares all buddhas are enlightened by this sutra calling all provision a phantom, a mirage, a delusion, a dream.

I hope this helps.

Independent or depend are concepts that can lead and involve imaginative thoughts...don’t fall for them...back to direct state. If we want to know something this is where it starts. This state is the closest thing to wisdom that we have.

[Malcolm]

Termas happen. That's a fact.

Sure, termas are revealed. That's what all Mahāyāna sūtras and tantras are, treasure revelations.

Right, so the revealings are not just stories and concepts

They are revelations that contain stories and concepts. And, with Mahāyāna sūtra and tantras, we do not actually know who revealed them. They are anonymous compositions.

[Natan]

Sure, termas are revealed. That's what all Mahāyāna sūtras and tantras are, treasure revelations.

Right, so the revealings are not just stories and concepts

They are revelations that contain stories and concepts. And, with Mahāyāna sūtra and tantras, we do not actually know who revealed them. They are anonymous compositions.

There was a guy called Padmasambhava. The sutras say who Buddha was talking to with Thus I Heard. We are meant to take them at face value that they were heard and saidnin the places they say and to whom. Buddha could have said this was all symbolic if he meant to.

[DewachenVagabond]

Last night I had the most interesting moment ever on this site.

here is what took place which leaves me totally wondering what this actually means to those of us who believe or believed in The Sutras are from a Buddha.


it started with this :

So it's like She was not really born from The tear, but because of the tear ,came to help out Buddha Avalokiteshvara and so appeared this way ?

It's a poetic image. Not be to taken literally. Tārā is also the mother of all the buddhas, including Śākyamuni, because she is the embodiment of Prajñāpāramitā, so again, poetic, not literal.

And then went unto this .

So this whole because of the Buddha's Dharmakaya body we get all this Mahayana sutras is just myth .And actually it's just guys putting stuff together like star trek and the Lotus sutra should both be together in the same category in the library, under science fiction.

So, whose version of the Dharma is more correct? Which version is more true? And who is the authority upon whom we can rely to ascertain this fact? You? Me? Some book/s written down by people whose names we will never know? Some medieval scholar? There are a lot of religious fanatics out there. There are also a lot of Buddhist religious fanatics. Fanaticism is toxic.

The implications are many .

I wonder how others feel about this.

You can see where I posted how i have dealt with this in this post , if you wish .

https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.p ... 39#p581139

I think the idea that the sutras are either directly from the historical Buddha or are fiction is a false dichotomy. For one thing, I think it implies that awakening is impossible, or at least that it hasn't happened for anyone but the historical Buddha. If the disciples of the Buddha can attain realization, then the teachings of those disciples should be authentic dharma if the teachings are based on that realization. IMO, if it adheres to the 4 dharma seals and leads to realization, then it's dharma.

[Malcolm]

We are meant to take them at face value that they were heard and saidnin the places they say and to whom.

Ok, you can take everything at face value if you like. That is your prerogative.

But do you really think thousands of monks can fit here?

[Malcolm]

I think the idea that the sutras are either directly from the historical Buddha or are fiction is a false dichotomy.

Yes, agreed. But they are still stories. We were not there. To claim we know for a fact that the what is reported in Mahāyāna Sūtras, or for that matter, even the Agamas, represent actual historical events is basically fanaticism, fundamentalism of the worst kind.

[DewachenVagabond]

I think the idea that the sutras are either directly from the historical Buddha or are fiction is a false dichotomy.

Yes, agreed. But they are still stories. We were not there. To claim we know for a fact that the what is reported in Mahāyāna Sūtras, or for that matter, even the Agamas, represent actual historical events is basically fanaticism, fundamentalism of the worst kind.

Oh yes, I agree completely. To think the sutras are supposed to be records of actual history is misguided and misses the point.

[Sādhaka]

We are meant to take them at face value that they were heard and saidnin the places they say and to whom.

Ok, you can take everything at face value if you like. That is your prerogative.

But do you really think thousands of monks can fit here?

”...when we examine the Mahayana scriptures themselves, we find statements that seem problematic in various ways. For example, the Perfection of Wisdom sutras state that they were taught by the Buddha at Vulture Peak in Rajagriha to a vast congregation of disciples.

“However, if you have visited the site in present-day Rajgir, it is obvious that it is impossible for more than a few people to fit onto the summit. So, we have to understand the truth of these accounts at a different level, a level beyond the ordinary one confined by conventional notions of space and time.” — The Essence of the Heart Sutra