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

[Queequeg]

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.

Isn't it the case that there is nothing but bodhisattva work to do, fully awakened or not regardless?

[LastLegend]

I hope so...if we don’t get caught up with self.
“Suffering is Bodhi.”

[Malcolm]

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...

Which is quite anticlimactic since this is exactly how the dharmakāya of the tathāgata is defined in the PP sūtras, etc. For example, Nāgārjuna quips in the MMK, "Whatever is the nature of Tathāgata, that is the nature of the world, etc."

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.

The inseparability of the three kāyas is a given in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. All buddhas possess the three kāyas.

But even in the Lotus, the Buddha acknowledges that there was a time when he had not attained buddhahood, though an inconceivably long period of time.

[Malcolm]

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.

Isn't it the case that there is nothing but bodhisattva work to do, fully awakened or not regardless?

Buddhas engage in it effortlessly, without reference points or the perception that there are sentient beings at all. All buddhas see is other buddhas. This is what the perfection of wisdom is all about.

[Malcolm]

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?

Based on style and content, we can accept the five treatises as the work of a single author. This person's work was commented upon and expanded by Asanga and Vasubandhu, for whom we have reasonably reliable, pre-Gupta dates. The commentary on the Uttaratantra is of somewhat doubtful authorship, but not the Uttaratantra itself.

[Javierfv1212]

Based on style and content, we can accept the five treatises as the work of a single author. This person's work was commented upon and expanded by Asanga and Vasubandhu, for whom we have reasonably reliable, pre-Gupta dates. The commentary on the Uttaratantra is of somewhat doubtful authorship, but not the Uttaratantra itself.

Maybe, but this is not accepted by everyone it seems.

Interestingly, Brunnholzl says that the Chinese tradition also speaks of five Maitreya texts and that this is first mentioned by Dunlun. However, this tradition "considers them as consisting of the Yogācārabhūmi, *Yogavibhāga [now lost], Mahāyānasūtrālamkārakā, Madhyāntavibhāga and the Vajracchedikākāvyākhyā."

So perhaps some of these do go back to pre-Gupta, like maybe the Mahāyānasūtrālamkārakā, but probably not all of them.

A further question, in your opinion, what is the best translation available of the Mahāyānasūtrālamkārakā?

[Malcolm]

Based on style and content, we can accept the five treatises as the work of a single author. This person's work was commented upon and expanded by Asanga and Vasubandhu, for whom we have reasonably reliable, pre-Gupta dates. The commentary on the Uttaratantra is of somewhat doubtful authorship, but not the Uttaratantra itself.

Maybe, but this is not accepted by everyone it seems.

Nothing is accepted by everyone. So this is not a useful criteria. In any case, Sthiramati discusses Asanga, and he dates from the 6th century, placing Asanga before him, i.e., prior to the downfall of the Guptas.

[Malcolm]

A further question, in your opinion, what is the best translation available of the Mahāyānasūtrālamkārakā?

Not sure there is an excellent one yet. The Thurman one is dreadful.

[Norwegian]

A further question, in your opinion, what is the best translation available of the Mahāyānasūtrālamkārakā?

Not sure there is an excellent one yet. The Thurman one is dreadful.

There's this one, by the Dharmacakra Translation Committee:

https://www.amazon.[]com/Ornament-Great-Vehicle-Sutras-Mahayanasutralamkara/dp/1559394285/

(Remove brackets in between dot and com, since for some reason Amazon embeds turn invisible here)

[Javierfv1212]

According to wiki, there are at least three:

* Lobsang Jamspal, Robert Thurman and the American Institute of Buddhist Studies translation committee (2004)
* The Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras by the Dharmachakra Translation Committee, in particular Thomas Doctor. This includes Mipham Rinpoche's commentary as well as Khenpo Shenga's annotations (2014)
* The Feast of the Nectar of the Supreme Vehicles by the Padmakara Translation Group. It includes the commentary of Mipham Rinpoche as well as extensive footnotes (2018)

Curious as to why they translated Mipham commy twice instead of some other commentary, was there something wrong with the 2014 translation?

[Javierfv1212]

Based on style and content, we can accept the five treatises as the work of a single author. This person's work was commented upon and expanded by Asanga and Vasubandhu, for whom we have reasonably reliable, pre-Gupta dates. The commentary on the Uttaratantra is of somewhat doubtful authorship, but not the Uttaratantra itself.

Maybe, but this is not accepted by everyone it seems.

Nothing is accepted by everyone. So this is not a useful criteria. In any case, Sthiramati discusses Asanga, and he dates from the 6th century, placing Asanga before him, i.e., prior to the downfall of the Guptas.

Obviously that is not what I meant, I meant that seriously scholars have put your assertion into doubt. But there is no reason to argue the issue further, I have made my point.

[Minobu]

In regards to the title and what it implies in this Thread.

Also what i think about the discussion and such in this thread..

I contend that all Mahayana is made up "Thus heard man made" ...never actually preached from Buddha ...at all...zero ...zelch a roonie O

my take...

Nichiren Shonin knew this...saw the flawed religion and misused religion of His time...

He could not say what i just said....But knew it....

so he devised a discussion, not unlike what i have witnessed here....with the High Priests of Japan ...

But in the end what to do for the Actual Buddha in all this man made mess ...accepted as gospel...like ! burn you at the stake if you say it is totally man made and is not at all actual gospel Buddhism.......


He created from the nonsense and sci fi madness a viable means for people with the blessings of the enlightened ones and gods a practice to put people on the REAL PATH to Liberation...

simple concise...it works....Targets Buddha Nature ...uses this childish 3000 ichinen sanzen deal .A must have in your doctrine of that era in Japan.....and the title of the LS and all it's mystique that goes along with the meaning of Myo and so on....

unfortunately he had to work with stuff that leads to what took place in this thread with the High Priests of Dharma Wheel...

He only had the whole ten dai LS and various man made sutras to work with and discuss with the High Priests of Japan at that time...

So his religion is like "Toodles. off to real practice..."


You can never attain enlightenment through this discourse displayed here in this thread...

it's been a privilege to watch it unfold...

[LastLegend]

You can never attain enlightenment through this discourse displayed here in this thread...

it's been a privilege to watch it unfold...

We could if we could end the workings of mind and enter One Samadhi.

[Malcolm]

You can never attain enlightenment through this discourse displayed here in this thread...

No one ever implied it could.

[Malcolm]

According to wiki, there are at least three:

* Lobsang Jamspal, Robert Thurman and the American Institute of Buddhist Studies translation committee (2004)
* The Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras by the Dharmachakra Translation Committee, in particular Thomas Doctor. This includes Mipham Rinpoche's commentary as well as Khenpo Shenga's annotations (2014)
* The Feast of the Nectar of the Supreme Vehicles by the Padmakara Translation Group. It includes the commentary of Mipham Rinpoche as well as extensive footnotes (2018)

Curious as to why they translated Mipham commy twice instead of some other commentary, was there something wrong with the 2014 translation?

People often believe (correctly more often than not) that older translations are in need of revising. And earlier translations make the work of later translations easier.

[Minobu]

You can never attain enlightenment through this discourse displayed here in this thread...

No one ever implied it could.

The point to Nichiren's practice is understood when you see the futility in holding unto the LS and other mahayana as the words of Buddha.

He took three short passages from the LS and tossed all of the other sutras out the window...except in discussion out of necessity...but His Religion is based on like a few moments of all 80,000 teachings

then used a modified title ....


He put together the Vedic gods and the traits of people and gods and demi gods on a mandala..

never told anyone what to do with it...

make a sound with these words...chant this sound...


it will do this....it will lead you to you accessing your Buddha Nature ...the real deal...

It's all about personal volition to what you think it is all about...

His whole religion is in fog...

oh you can go on and on of all he had to debate about Buddhism...
but it comes down to...


the less you are taught what it is all about ...the better it works...

why...

cause the Real Deal is inexplicable.. to access it you need to use....UGH!....winces.....


..faith...

[Malcolm]

You can never attain enlightenment through this discourse displayed here in this thread...

No one ever implied it could.

The point to Nichiren's practice is understood when you see the futility in holding unto the LS and other mahayana as the words of Buddha.

This thread is not really about Nichiren's take on the Lotus Sutra, or for that matter, Zhi Yi's. The principle point was to negate Budai's (who changes their nym about once a week, should cut that out) assertion that the liberation of all buddhas derives solely from the Lotus Sūtra. It's a false claim not supported in the text itself.

[Malcolm]

it will do this....it will lead you to you accessing your Buddha Nature ...the real deal...

Thanks, but I am all set.

[Minobu]

it will do this....it will lead you to you accessing your Buddha Nature ...the real deal...

Thanks, but I am all set.

lol

[Minobu]

No one ever implied it could.

The point to Nichiren's practice is understood when you see the futility in holding unto the LS and other mahayana as the words of Buddha.

This thread is not really about Nichiren's take on the Lotus Sutra, or for that matter, Zhi Yi's. The principle point was to negate Budai's (who changes their nym about once a week, should cut that out) assertion that the liberation of all buddhas derives solely from the Lotus Sūtra. It's a false claim not supported in the text itself.

yes i got that....but as someone claimed ..It's only the Nichiren people who put so much into the LS...

you cannot have a discussion in 2021 about the LS...with practicing Nichiren people in attendance without them chiming in with their shtick...So then ...

and where then did this come from

assertion that the liberation of all buddhas derives solely from the Lotus Sūtra. It's a false claim not supported in the text itself.

Ten Dai...yes no ...

and Nichiren was stuck in a country that looked to it as gospel...he gets his neck on the chopping block for far less assertions...

the whole 3000 world thing is like some childish psychology 101 ...it is derived supposedly in whole from the LS ...but you have to go through a lot of man made hoops to come to the conclusion it's the real deal as stated in the LS.....what we live in...like gospel science on the matter...

it sort of is...but thats about it...sort of is...it's a view only thing...


there is a reason that Nichiren went out on his own...his teachings will only make sense when you see that all mahayana is man made gossip basic...


studying them in 2021 is a useless endeavor...especially when you think that the Vedas were written down a thousand years before Siddhartha was born...they too were a verbal thing for like an unknown time..but the point is it took 200 hundred years after Siddhartha died to have anything written down what he said...not for lack of means..but for what reason....

it's all fable...man made ...