Re: buddhas achieve enlightenment through LS (Was "Which has primacy, Buddha or Dharma"?)

[LastLegend]

If we are talking about enlightenment of empty Dharmakaya, there is no difference in this realization between Bodhisattvas and Buddhas. Though Bodhisattvas have to progress eventually.

That's the question here isn't it? Are non-regressing bodhisattvas equally awakened to a buddha? This text seems to suggest that their realization is not the same as a buddha's realization.

Dharmakaya is the spontaneous Wisdom we all have. There cannot be a difference here. Shakyamuni Buddha has already completed his six paramitas and has perfected that Wisdom through his Bodhisattva work. Bodhisattvas need to do that.

[Queequeg]

If we are talking about enlightenment of empty Dharmakaya, there is no difference in this realization between Bodhisattvas and Buddhas. Though Bodhisattvas have to progress eventually.

That's the question here isn't it? Are non-regressing bodhisattvas equally awakened to a buddha? This text seems to suggest that their realization is not the same as a buddha's realization.

Dharmakaya is the spontaneous Wisdom we all have. There cannot be a difference here. Shakyamuni Buddha has already completed his six paramitas and have perfected that Wisdom through his Bodhisattva work. Bodhisattvas need to do that.

OK. You're putting it in terms of Tathagatgarbha view - unacquired bodhi.

In that case, I would be put it this way - non-regressing bodhisattvas have not perfected buddhahood, and this Lotus is the teaching to guide them to that completion.

My attempt at an answer. Can't claim that is definitive.

[Queequeg]

there is no upaya ...it's direct contact via Dharmakaya..

That's called the Sudden and Perfect Teaching in Tiantai. As I understand, later in Tendai, Vajrayana methods were applied to practice this.

This of course is hugely interesting to any Vajrayana student.

Its interesting to me, too. I don't know that much about this.

[LastLegend]

That's the question here isn't it? Are non-regressing bodhisattvas equally awakened to a buddha? This text seems to suggest that their realization is not the same as a buddha's realization.

Dharmakaya is the spontaneous Wisdom we all have. There cannot be a difference here. Shakyamuni Buddha has already completed his six paramitas and have perfected that Wisdom through his Bodhisattva work. Bodhisattvas need to do that.

OK. You're putting it in terms of Tathagatgarbha view - unacquired bodhi.

In that case, I would be put it this way - non-regressing bodhisattvas have not perfected buddhahood, and this Lotus is the teaching to guide them to that completion.

My attempt at an answer. Can't claim that is definitive.

I don’t use luminous or pure often because I think it could mislead. There is subtle grasping...self which I think is the big line or fine line between a non-regressing Bodhisattva and us.

[Queequeg]

As for characterizing motivations, who is being disparaging and cynical now?

I don't know. I haven't tried to characterise your motivation. I've asked you to clarify what you meant a few times. I explained some of your words sounded disparaging and cynical to me.

When someone despairs, "I can't help anyone because I'm just a helpless worldling," or "I will help beings when I'm a great being" is it my burden to discern what they really mean?

I have never come across a Buddhist choosing to not try and help someone because their practice isn't perfect. Bodhisattvas don't perfect generosity and so forth and then practise them, they perfect them while practising them. Your view of what a bodhisattva is and does seem very different to mine.

I have a lot of respect for your knowledge of East Asian Buddhism but in this thread, you seem to be angry about something. I apologise if I'm partly responsible for that and I'll leave you to it.

I think there was some misunderstanding here. You were asking if Buddhahood is a goal in East Asian Buddhism. I answered, perhaps a little too cavalierly, and you seem to have taken personal offense. But don't gas light me and tell me you're just asking questions. You're injecting your commentary on motivations. Just because you say, "It seems such and such..." doesn't mean you're not making and communicating judgments. Don't do that. Its transparent and worse than just owning your opinions.

Back to your original question, that's a big question and I'm not in a position to answer it. I think the doctrinal answer is, of course. In practice, I'm not sure. Its something out there, but in most cases, its pretty abstract. You have some people in East Asia who embrace iconoclasm and talk about killing the Buddha if you encounter him on the road. You have other interpretations that put this eventuality in more philosophical terms, and view states like Buddhahood and Bodhisattvahood as functions rather than states of various specific entities.

In the end, I don't think its different than what you describe - and if you look above in our exchange, you'll see this is what I wrote - people just do it. Just do generosity, care, love, joy. What my understanding is that we ought to just do these things, remove all that abstraction such as, "I'm helping feed the hungry. This is my bodhisattva work. This is my practice of generosity and care." What I was saying is that in practice, there really isn't any need for this myth based overlay, and IMO, losing that overlay, whether its conventional, secular, Christian, Buddhist, whatever, the point is to drop all that and, to put it in Buddhistic terms, manifest the function of a bodhisattva, of a buddha, as the case may be.

Underlying this is the inescapable fact that we can't help but frame our activities in some narrative. So the practice is trying to do these things, perfect giving, patience, kindness, etc. spontaneously.

I don't know if that answers any of your questions.

[Minobu]

there is no upaya ...it's direct contact via Dharmakaya..

That's called the Sudden and Perfect Teaching in Tiantai. As I understand, later in Tendai, Vajrayana methods were applied to practice this.

This of course is hugely interesting to any Vajrayana student.

I'm like totally wrong at times...

for instance...i'm a long time Nichiren Practitioner and did not know the scope of His connection with TenDai...like i thought He came from another sect. and just knew tendai stuff..The Man was a product of TenDai... QQ taught us that...

I did a five year Tantric thing with a Rinpoche..took so many initiations i forget the names of some of them...took a 2nd stage Tantric teaching thing...which was weird for it was basically what i knew from before ....

Anyway....due to the formal teachings i came back to try my Nichiren practice with the knowledge that maybe this whole Gohonzon thing is like Tantric...

Voila !!! it is....perfect in every way ...total nincompoops can actualize the essential teachings on such matters...perfectly ...even without them knowing...it's like when i would go to a lecture and did not know what the rinpoche was teaching i would just imagine that I'm absorbing the teaching anyway...

so for me..Nichiren Base practice in the morning...sets up everything...

And for some beautiful reason i chose Zazep Rinpoche...He will tell you everything that some rinpoches don't think He should...

the six yogas of Naropa...everything...so i got lucky there....my next quest is Sonam Rinpoche and hopefully am worthy enough to do Dzogchen...i need to be able to experience this...i know that now....


this whole myopic anti other things is ludicrous and damaging to the Teaching.

there is only one vehicle even though it seems there are many...

[Queequeg]

Dharmakaya is the spontaneous Wisdom we all have. There cannot be a difference here. Shakyamuni Buddha has already completed his six paramitas and have perfected that Wisdom through his Bodhisattva work. Bodhisattvas need to do that.

OK. You're putting it in terms of Tathagatgarbha view - unacquired bodhi.

In that case, I would be put it this way - non-regressing bodhisattvas have not perfected buddhahood, and this Lotus is the teaching to guide them to that completion.

My attempt at an answer. Can't claim that is definitive.

I don’t use luminous or pure often because I think it could mislead. There is subtle grasping...self which I think is the big line or fine line between a non-regressing Bodhisattva and us.

I haven't thought about this, but that sounds reasonable. I'm not sure the Lotus is addressed to that particular obstacle of grasping at self.

[Minobu]

OK. You're putting it in terms of Tathagatgarbha view - unacquired bodhi.

In that case, I would be put it this way - non-regressing bodhisattvas have not perfected buddhahood, and this Lotus is the teaching to guide them to that completion.

My attempt at an answer. Can't claim that is definitive.

I don’t use luminous or pure often because I think it could mislead. There is subtle grasping...self which I think is the big line or fine line between a non-regressing Bodhisattva and us.

I haven't thought about this, but that sounds reasonable. I'm not sure the Lotus is addressed to that particular obstacle of grasping at self.

So if we are looking for one complete Sutra that answers all...like what just got posted above...

I don't think there is one...

even though Buddha said I have not revealed the truth in the LS...does not mean lets throw out the Sutras and everything else because of that one line..

seems extreme...

the thing it brought to the fore ..the LS...is this concept of theatre ..Buddha pretended to be like unenlightened and then tried all this extreme weird stuff...sat under a tree living off mud pies and then attained enlightenment...

It was the LS that allowed for everyone that studies Mahayana to realize He attained enlightenment many infinities ago...Nichiren talks of other Buddhas before Him and then those waiting after him...not emanation bodies ..but actuall full blown buddhas before Sakyamuni attained enlightenment...

now if one is stuck on Lord Sakyamuni being the eternal Buddha and that rabbit hole well...

but we still have what Nichiren said.

[LastLegend]

OK. You're putting it in terms of Tathagatgarbha view - unacquired bodhi.

In that case, I would be put it this way - non-regressing bodhisattvas have not perfected buddhahood, and this Lotus is the teaching to guide them to that completion.

My attempt at an answer. Can't claim that is definitive.

I don’t use luminous or pure often because I think it could mislead. There is subtle grasping...self which I think is the big line or fine line between a non-regressing Bodhisattva and us.

I haven't thought about this, but that sounds reasonable. I'm not sure the Lotus is addressed to that particular obstacle of grasping at self.

Yes but the Lotus Sutra or most Mahayana Sutras they don’t get specific because that’s intentional I think. When we grasp, we just do no matter if something is specific, detail, or accurate.

I think stupa chapter has an important message. The description of all that happening in that chapter contains metaphors...such what stupa represents? What are emanations? Why did the Buddha turn Saha world with adornments of precious jewels?

[Minobu]

I don’t use luminous or pure often because I think it could mislead. There is subtle grasping...self which I think is the big line or fine line between a non-regressing Bodhisattva and us.

I haven't thought about this, but that sounds reasonable. I'm not sure the Lotus is addressed to that particular obstacle of grasping at self.

Yes but the Lotus Sutra or most Mahayana Sutras they don’t get specific because that’s intentional I think. When we grasp, we just do no matter if something is specific, detail, or accurate.

I think stupa chapter has an important message. The description of all that happening in that chapter contains metaphors...such what stupa represents? What are emanations? Why did the Buddha turn Saha world with adornments of precious jewels?

he did not turn the saha world into anything...

it's like this...Gunter the german guy i talk about who told me stuff when i was a kid...

He said when you raise your kundalini and accomplish it ...you will not longer see the world as you do now...it will be this incredible beautiful thing...

stuff that is all around you you don't have the eyes for will then be visible...actually visible...not mataphors...

The buddha is telling you what is actually there...

the whole self grasping thing...

if your practice has you focusing on trying not to self grasp or understand self grasping...you are all grasped out dude..

i sound like i am anti intellectual...and when i tried my best to understand luminosity..someone said see Minobu intelectual study is good..

but yes it's about intellectual pursuit..but in the end you do not need it...

thank god for people like QQ and Malcolm...these are sentients on a path for others...but ...and this is the but...you don't need it...

but if not for those QQ and Malcolms....we would also be dead in the water...all you need is faith...someone to point it out to you ..and a path that is actually Buddhist...depending on the path will depend on how far you go and how long...


of course i could be totally wrong...but for today it's all i need to know in order to go and do some practice...

[LastLegend]

I haven't thought about this, but that sounds reasonable. I'm not sure the Lotus is addressed to that particular obstacle of grasping at self.

Yes but the Lotus Sutra or most Mahayana Sutras they don’t get specific because that’s intentional I think. When we grasp, we just do no matter if something is specific, detail, or accurate.

I think stupa chapter has an important message. The description of all that happening in that chapter contains metaphors...such what stupa represents? What are emanations? Why did the Buddha turn Saha world with adornments of precious jewels?

he did not turn the saha world into anything...

it's like this...Gunter the german guy i talk about who told me stuff when i was a kid...

He said when you raise your kundalini and accomplish it ...you will not longer see the world as you do now...it will be this incredible beautiful thing...

stuff that is all around you you don't have the eyes for will then be visible...actually visible...not mataphors...

The buddha is telling you what is actually there...

the whole self grasping thing...

if your practice has you focusing on trying not to self grasp or understand self grasping...you are all grasped out dude..

i sound like i am anti intellectual...and when i tried my best to understand luminosity..someone said see Minobu intelectual study is good..

but yes it's about intellectual pursuit..but in the end you do not need it...

thank god for people like QQ and Malcolm...these are sentients on a path for others...but ...and this is the but...you don't need it...

but if not for those QQ and Malcolms....we would also be dead in the water...all you need is faith...someone to point it out to you ..and a path that is actually Buddhist...depending on the path will depend on how far you go and how long...


of course i could be totally wrong...but for today it's all i need to know in order to go and do some practice...

I can’t tell whether you are being sarcastic. Read the chapter if you say he didn’t turn Saha world into anything.

[Malcolm]

I undersand what you are saying, but I don't agree that its as unambiguous as you claim. In using the term, "Buddhayana", "Ekayana", contrasting it with "Bodhisattvayana," a distinction is clearly being made. If Mahayana always in all instances meant "one vehicle taught as three" from the start, there would be no reason to explain this. This text is clearly responding to something. I argued above, when this text was compiled, I'm not convinced that what has later become Mahayana orthodoxy was clearly established.

There are several Mahāyāna sūtras which challenge śrāvaka notions of bodhisattva conduct and practice. One of the key features of the Mahāyāna movement was challenging śrāvaka school interpretations of the bodhisattva path, as I outlined above. I provided a fairly comprehensive list of those sūtras. They include all sūtras we now consider primary Mahāyāna texts.

We know that there are some early "Mahayana" texts that take the three vehicles as distinct.

The dominant sūtras which inform Mahāyāna hermeneutics are all ekayāna sūtras, such as the PP, Lanka, Lotus, Avatamska, Nirvana, etc.

The idea that Mahayana was there from the beginning, fully formed, but had just been kept secret for the first few centuries after the Buddha passed, or kept among some group that didn't have the institutional authority to gain recognition, or handed to Nagarjuna by the Nagas, is just not compelling and hardly worth discussing outside of a faith based discussion.

That's not a claim I am making.

Each instance where the Ekayana is explained is defined by its particulars, and the nature of that distinction, IMO, is up for debate. Is it just this Abhidharma idea of Bodhisattva that is being criticized? Maybe.

Most definitely. This is the whole point of the lifespan chapter.

I know you discount certain turns in the narrative by adding footnotes. I do think there is a place to read the text with those footnotes. But, reading with footnotes also changes the narrative. Personally, I don't find the footnotes you want to add particularly convincing. The whole, "well, he's an advanced bodhisattva and actually knows the answer but is just asking for other's edification." It just smacks of someone making things up to accommodate something that doesn't quite fit in their preconceptions. I may be suffering a similar affliction.

Presenting a character in a sutra who is renowned in some circles for their level of realization, and using them as a stooge is a well-known rhetorical device in Indian Mahāyāna. We see it in sūtras like Vimalakīrti, the PP class, and so on.

Here is why I think there is something to the argument that the Lotus is critiquing certain ideas of the Mahayana.

Ok, I don't agree, but that's obvious.

"Mañjuśrī, this is the supreme Dharma taught by the tathāgatas. This is the final Dharma teaching of the tathāgatas. Among all Dharma teachings this is the most profound Dharma teaching. It does not accord with the world."

While never really explaining why.

And there is the explicit distinction of the bodhisattvas in the Assembly as on an incomplete path. If you just footnote that Maitreya actually knows the answer to the question, then of course it changes the narrative. If, however, you take the story as it is written, it presents a different message. As if to reinforce this, the bodhisattvas who had accompanied the emanation buddhas from the ten directions also asked their respective buddhas where these bodhisattvas came from.

As I said, the use of highly realized stooges in Mahāyāna sūtras is quite common, for example, Mañjuśṛī as the stooge in the Vimalakirtī Sūtra, Avalokiteśvara as the stooge in other Mahāyāna sūtras, and Vajrapāṇi in still others.

Based on internal evidence, the Lotus was compiled in Northwest among Mahāsaṃghikas-lokottaravādins. The use of Maitreya here is significant, based on the early date of the sūtra and its location of origin, as he was one of the few, explicitly-named bodhisattva figures in the pre-Mahāyāna period. We know from the many images of Maitreya found in Gandhara and so on, that Maitreya had enduring popularity in that Gandhara region. The Mahāvastu, you should recall, was an important Lokottaravādin compilation, who were centered in Gandhara, and Maitreya is predicted there. Thus, I think that the bodhisattva path being critiqued here is the one found in the Mahavastu, since as Karashima points out, the Lotus in its earliest witnesses reflects the language found in the Mahāvastu.

The incomplete bodhisattva path, presented in the Mahāvastu and elsewhere, is the path of the hinayāna bodhisattva, who does not attain awakening until their final birth.

This is where the Buddha illustrates the length of time since his awakening by resorting to the example of crushing world systems into dust and then spreading them around the universe and crushing those world systems into dust, with each dust particle representing eons. Maitreya admits that even the great bodhisattvas can't fathom this teaching:

In Tibetan Buddhism, the idea that the Buddha attained awakening eons ago is standard. It is not something unusual or remarkable. Every school of Tibetan Buddhism accepts it without any quibbles at all, since it is key to Vajrayāna hermeneutics as well.

Anyway, you get my drift. Even the great bodhisattvas of the Mahayana are not up to this teaching.

The stooge issue again. All great magicians use stooges in the audience.

All of this informs what the Buddha was saying earlier about one vehicle taught as three, distinguishing the Buddhayana from the ordinary Mahayana. When you add footnotes to say, "Oh, Maitreya was just going along with the drag show" it maybe changes the story a little, but it remains that there are still hosts of bodhisattvas who are not at that level and who are actually astonished by this teaching, meaning there are different levels of Mahayana that are incomplete compared to the Ekayana.

I personally do not see any evidence of this in the text itself. I think the more sensible, and more historically reliable approach, is what I presented above: that is, the Lotus was composed in a dialogue with Mahāsaṃghikas-lokottaravādins in Gandhara about the nature of the bodhisattva path presented in the Mahāvastu.

[Malcolm]

You have some people in East Asia who embrace iconoclasm and talk about killing the Buddha if you encounter him on the road.t in Buddhistic terms, manifest the function of a bodhisattva, of a buddha, as the case may be.

This is just a reference to the story of Angulimāla, who tried to kill the Buddha on the road.

[Queequeg]

I don’t use luminous or pure often because I think it could mislead. There is subtle grasping...self which I think is the big line or fine line between a non-regressing Bodhisattva and us.

I haven't thought about this, but that sounds reasonable. I'm not sure the Lotus is addressed to that particular obstacle of grasping at self.

Yes but the Lotus Sutra or most Mahayana Sutras they don’t get specific because that’s intentional I think. When we grasp, we just do no matter if something is specific, detail, or accurate.

I think stupa chapter has an important message. The description of all that happening in that chapter contains metaphors...such what stupa represents? What are emanations? Why did the Buddha turn Saha world with adornments of precious jewels?

I've heard the stupa represents the Rupakaya while Shakyamuni represents the Dharmakaya. I think I've also heard that Shakyamuni represents the rupakaya while Prabhutaratna represents the Dharmakaya. I've heard suggestions that Shakyamuni and Prabhutaratna are in some sort of consort relationship in the stupa. I've heard the Stupa represents the real nature of sentient beings, that it is our immaculate mind.

Yes, I agree, that chapter is very rich in meanings.

[LastLegend]

I haven't thought about this, but that sounds reasonable. I'm not sure the Lotus is addressed to that particular obstacle of grasping at self.

Yes but the Lotus Sutra or most Mahayana Sutras they don’t get specific because that’s intentional I think. When we grasp, we just do no matter if something is specific, detail, or accurate.

I think stupa chapter has an important message. The description of all that happening in that chapter contains metaphors...such what stupa represents? What are emanations? Why did the Buddha turn Saha world with adornments of precious jewels?

I've heard the stupa represents the Rupakaya while Shakyamuni represents the Dharmakaya. I think I've also heard that Shakyamuni represents the rupakaya while Prabhutaratna represents the Dharmakaya. I've heard suggestions that Shakyamuni and Prabhutaratna are in some sort of consort relationship in the stupa. I've heard the Stupa represents the real nature of sentient beings, that it is our immaculate mind.

Yes, I agree, that chapter is very rich in meanings.

Too many hidden meanings for path from aspiration until after practice non-regressing. The meaning of getting out of Samsara through burning house is grounded in grasping or self. While this grasping seems obvious, it isn’t. It manifests in the way we think, in meditation, in practice, everything we do, subtle and coarse.

[Queequeg]

Each instance where the Ekayana is explained is defined by its particulars, and the nature of that distinction, IMO, is up for debate. Is it just this Abhidharma idea of Bodhisattva that is being criticized? Maybe.

Most definitely. This is the whole point of the lifespan chapter.

Assuming you are right, and its plausible, we're confronted with other confusing uses of stock terms and characters.

Presenting a character in a sutra who is renowned in some circles for their level of realization, and using them as a stooge is a well-known rhetorical device in Indian Mahāyāna. We see it in sūtras like Vimalakīrti, the PP class, and so on.

We agree. I'm objecting to reinterpretation of these texts saying, "Well, Maitreya actually does know, he's just playing his part." This is different than saying, "This is a work of fiction in which the authors are using Maitreya as device to argue such and such a point."

Here is why I think there is something to the argument that the Lotus is critiquing certain ideas of the Mahayana.

Ok, I don't agree, but that's obvious.

This all depends on what "Mahayana" means. Are we looking back from an established Ekayana point of view or are we talking about an emerging Ekayana view? I'd argue this text represents an emerging Ekayana view that was critiquing a certain definition of Mahayana. I don't have any particular reason to doubt your argument that this is a critique of Mahasamghikas. The Lotus though gives every indication that its expressing the views of a fringe minority. It makes sense that the heirs of this text's authors became the dominant view later, and the reading of the text changed as well.

"Mañjuśrī, this is the supreme Dharma taught by the tathāgatas. This is the final Dharma teaching of the tathāgatas. Among all Dharma teachings this is the most profound Dharma teaching. It does not accord with the world."

While never really explaining why.

I actually think it does. It makes reference to it.

Shakyamuni in the Stupa chapter remarks:

"A tathāgata is the true nature, and that true nature is the limit of reality. That limit of reality is the essence of phenomena. That true nature, limit of reality, and essence of phenomena is the Dharma teaching of The White Lotus of the Good Dharma. When the completely pure tathāgatas come, are seen, and speak, through the power of their previous prayers they teach the great skillful method of The White Lotus of the Good Dharma to completely pure beings.”

Prabhutaratna in response says, "Amen, brother. Truth!"

Based on internal evidence, the Lotus was compiled in Northwest among Mahāsaṃghikas-lokottaravādins. The use of Maitreya here is significant, based on the early date of the sūtra and its location of origin, as he was one of the few, explicitly-named bodhisattva figures in the pre-Mahāyāna period. We know from the many images of Maitreya found in Gandhara and so on, that Maitreya had enduring popularity in that Gandhara region. The Mahāvastu, you should recall, was an important Lokottaravādin compilation, who were centered in Gandhara, and Maitreya is predicted there. Thus, I think that the bodhisattva path being critiqued here is the one found in the Mahavastu, since as Karashima points out, the Lotus in its earliest witnesses reflects the language found in the Mahāvastu.

The incomplete bodhisattva path, presented in the Mahāvastu and elsewhere, is the path of the hinayāna bodhisattva, who does not attain awakening until their final birth.

Totally plausible.

This is where the Buddha illustrates the length of time since his awakening by resorting to the example of crushing world systems into dust and then spreading them around the universe and crushing those world systems into dust, with each dust particle representing eons. Maitreya admits that even the great bodhisattvas can't fathom this teaching:

In Tibetan Buddhism, the idea that the Buddha attained awakening eons ago is standard. It is not something unusual or remarkable. Every school of Tibetan Buddhism accepts it without any quibbles at all, since it is key to Vajrayāna hermeneutics as well.

In East Asia, in the Lotus based schools, this idea comes from this. Its interpreted to reveal a triple bodied buddha without beginning or end.

[Queequeg]

The meaning of getting out of Samsara through burning house is grounded in grasping or self. While this grasping seems obvious, it isn’t. It manifests in the way we think, in meditation, in practice, everything we do, subtle and coarse.

Maybe. But the Buddha lures the children out by using their grasping for a new toy. Sometimes maybe we shouldn't read too much into the parable. (I am aware of how silly that sounds in the context of this thread.)

[Queequeg]

You have some people in East Asia who embrace iconoclasm and talk about killing the Buddha if you encounter him on the road.t in Buddhistic terms, manifest the function of a bodhisattva, of a buddha, as the case may be.

This is just a reference to the story of Angulimāla, who tried to kill the Buddha on the road.

Maybe. But the iconoclasm is real.

[LastLegend]

The meaning of getting out of Samsara through burning house is grounded in grasping or self. While this grasping seems obvious, it isn’t. It manifests in the way we think, in meditation, in practice, everything we do, subtle and coarse.

Maybe. But the Buddha lures the children out by using their grasping for a new toy. Sometimes maybe we shouldn't read too much into the parable. (I am aware of how silly that sounds in the context of this thread.)

Okay I understand. It’s not however complicated. We just need to know that we need to do Bodhisattva work after fully awakened...whatever thinks opposed to this is postponing the path and understood as self or grasping.

[Javierfv1212]

Hello Malcolm

you said

Thus, I think that the bodhisattva path being critiqued here is the one found in the Mahavastu, since as Karashima points out, the Lotus in its earliest witnesses reflects the language found in the Mahāvastu.

Can you point me to where he said this, I would like to read it.

Further back, you had also said

The main lines of Indian scholarly analysis of sutras took place prior to the collapse of Gupta Dynasty .... The main persons who articulate what Tibetans understand from the broad range of Mahāyāna doctrine are Maitreya and Asanga. The main text Tibetans have used as a manual to understand Mahāyāna practice is the Mahāyāna Sūtrālaṃkāra of Maitreya. So, it is erroneous to claim that the Tibetan Buddhist view of sūtra derives from a post-Gupta milieu, as you have here claimed.

My understanding of the Asanga Maitreya literature is that it is not all actually by these two authors, and what we have instead is a group of texts, some of which are authentic and others which were retroactively assigned to these figures (as happened to Nagarjuna and others). Modern scholars question the attribution of many of these texts to the time period of Asanga. Indeed, it is now well known in Buddhist studies that the so called "five works of Maitreya" are most likely late texts and are mentioned only in later sources as being by "Maitreya". This is discussed for example, by Hookham in his 1991 "The Buddha within".

As such, I am not sure we can accept your statement that "the main lines of Indian scholarly analysis of sutras took place prior to the collapse of Gupta Dynasty" without reservation. Now, I have not read enough to be able to say that the Sūtrālamkāra is post Gupta or not, but I am not sure we can categorically claim this as you have done. Thoughts?