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

[Budai]

KC did not start this topic, it was split from https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=36718

Giving the Buddha Primacy, why do we take refuge in the one Gautama Buddha and call the rest of the Buddhas His Sangha, even though they are Buddhas as well?

What we really go for refuge to is the dharmakāya, a buddha's realization.

We don't refer to the other Buddhas besides Śākyamuni Buddha as his Sangha, since they all have the same realization. There are some schools that seek to elevate Śākyamuni, and consider all other buddhas to be emanations of the former, but this is an erroneous understanding.

How is the flow of Nibbana involved as an Expedient Means to preach the reality of Constant Realization and Constant Advancement for a Buddha based on the experience of a Buddha’s Compassion and Maitri, and mission?

[Ayu]

Giving the Buddha Primacy, why do we take refuge in the one Gautama Buddha and call the rest of the Buddhas His Sangha, even though they are Buddhas as well?

What we really go for refuge to is the dharmakāya, a buddha's realization.

We don't refer to the other Buddhas besides Śākyamuni Buddha as his Sangha, since they all have the same realization. There are some schools that seek to elevate Śākyamuni, and consider all other buddhas to be emanations of the former, but this is an erroneous understanding.

How is the flow of Nibbana involved as an Expedient Means to preach the reality of Constant Realization and Constant Advancement for a Buddha based on the experience of a Buddha’s Compassion and Maitri, and mission?

Only a side note :
Just forget about 'preaching'. "The constant realisation of a Buddha" is nothing that can be preached.

It'll be taught by practice, by showing.
Nothing is being learned due to preaching/proselytizing.
Preaching means, you don't see whom you are talking to. No Bodhisattva would ever teach the Dharma like that.

[Budai]

What we really go for refuge to is the dharmakāya, a buddha's realization.

We don't refer to the other Buddhas besides Śākyamuni Buddha as his Sangha, since they all have the same realization. There are some schools that seek to elevate Śākyamuni, and consider all other buddhas to be emanations of the former, but this is an erroneous understanding.

How is the flow of Nibbana involved as an Expedient Means to preach the reality of Constant Realization and Constant Advancement for a Buddha based on the experience of a Buddha’s Compassion and Maitri, and mission?

Only a side note :
Just forget about 'preaching'. "The constant realisation of a Buddha" is nothing that can be preached.

It'll be taught by practice, by showing.
Nothing is being learned due to preaching/proselytizing.
Preaching means, you don't see whom you are talking to. No Bodhisattva would ever teach the Dharma like that.

On what authority do you say this? Has a teacher told you ever that preaching about it isn’t the case? Because it is so in the Lotus Sutra, the Sutra by which Buddhas become Enlightened. There are verses about Him constantly preaching the Law. What training have you received in Buddhism or what experience have you gotten in your midst that told you that preaching the right thing in Buddhism doesn’t work? Why?

[Ayu]

On what authority do you say this? Has a teacher told you ever that preaching about it isn’t the case?

Actually yes. My teacher told us to be sensitive. Not running around and bothering anybody who is not interested with what we think of Dharma. He told us not to peeve the people.

Because it is so in the Lotus Sutra, the Sutra by which Buddhas become Enlightened. There are verses about Him constantly preaching the Law. What training have you received in Buddhism or what experience have you gotten in your midst that told you that preaching the right thing in Buddhism doesn’t work? Why?

My teacher said, teaching the Dharma is the greatest offer you can do to the human beings. But I never heard somebody say, the Dharma should be preached. What for?
Maybe our argument is just about the word? What do you mean by preaching?
Preachers preach in a church. They speak down to the sheep until their ears fall off, isn't it?
There's no use in preaching, because nobody should follow the Dharma blindly only because somebody said so. Dharma is practice.

[SilenceMonkey]

How is the flow of Nibbana involved as an Expedient Means to preach the reality of Constant Realization and Constant Advancement for a Buddha based on the experience of a Buddha’s Compassion and Maitri, and mission?

Only a side note :
Just forget about 'preaching'. "The constant realisation of a Buddha" is nothing that can be preached.

It'll be taught by practice, by showing.
Nothing is being learned due to preaching/proselytizing.
Preaching means, you don't see whom you are talking to. No Bodhisattva would ever teach the Dharma like that.

On what authority do you say this? Has a teacher told you ever that preaching about it isn’t the case? Because it is so in the Lotus Sutra, the Sutra by which Buddhas become Enlightened. There are verses about Him constantly preaching the Law. What training have you received in Buddhism or what experience have you gotten in your midst that told you that preaching the right thing in Buddhism doesn’t work? Why?

And back to the old conversation about preaching... Again, "preaching" is an inaccurate translation. The correct translation would be to "teach" or "expound" the Dharma. 說法

As much as I love Burton Watson's translation for its poetry, there are a number of places where the translation is just a bit off. This is one of those places. To say the word "preaching" adds so many cultural associations that don't belong to the Lotus Sutra. He was one of the early translators, so it's permissible that the translation wasn't completely accurate. He was a sort of pioneer, unearthing the new territory. But we have better translations these days.

[Malcolm]

it is so in the Lotus Sutra, the Sutra by which Buddhas become Enlightened.

Buddhas do not attain awakening by relying on words.

If a certain disciple needs words to become Enlightened, if that is what His or Her Bodhicitta is thirsting for, then perhaps it is okay to use many words over a long period of time to explain to them the importance of certain Buddhist factors.

I was objecting to your claim that the Lotus Sūtra is the sūtra through which buddhas attain buddhahood.

[Budai]

Buddhas do not attain awakening by relying on words.

If a certain disciple needs words to become Enlightened, if that is what His or Her Bodhicitta is thirsting for, then perhaps it is okay to use many words over a long period of time to explain to them the importance of certain Buddhist factors.

I was objecting to your claim that the Lotus Sūtra is the sūtra through which buddhas attain buddhahood.

How do you feel about Buddha Himself making the claim within it’s text?

[Queequeg]

I don't think the Lotus that is the universal gate to buddhahood is merely coextensive with the text. I think the content of most of the sutra offers a hint. Something, something, upaya...

[Malcolm]

If a certain disciple needs words to become Enlightened, if that is what His or Her Bodhicitta is thirsting for, then perhaps it is okay to use many words over a long period of time to explain to them the importance of certain Buddhist factors.

I was objecting to your claim that the Lotus Sūtra is the sūtra through which buddhas attain buddhahood.

How do you feel about Buddha Himself making the claim within it’s text?

I don't find this claim in that text, "the Sutra by which Buddhas become Enlightened," at least not in the 84000 translation, which I regard as being the most accurate thus far.

[Budai]

Well it’s clear in the text of the Burton Watson translation:

"The way of the bodhisattva is the same as this. As long as a person has not yet heard. Not yet understood. And not yet been able to practice this Lotus Sutra, then you should know that person is still far away from anuttara-samyak-sambodhi. Why? Because all bodhisattvas who attain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi in all cases do so through this sutra. This sutra opens the gate of expedient means and shows the form of true reality. This storehouse of the Lotus Sutra is hidden deep and far away where no person can reach it. But the Buddha, teaching, converting and leading to success the bodhisattvas, opens it up for them.

"Medicine King, if there are bodhisattvas who, on hearing this Lotus Sutra, respond with surprise, doubt and fear, then you should know that they are bodhisattvas who have only newly embarked on their course. And if there are voice-hearers who, on hearing this sutra, respond with surprise, doubt, and fear, then you should know that they are persons of overbearing arrogance.

https://nichiren.info/buddhism/lotussut ... hap10.html

In a sense the Buddha is saying that everything He teaches comes from the Lotus Sutra, even the entirety of Buddhism and vice versa, conceptually we can understand this because everything in Buddhism brings one closer to Enlightenment.

[Malcolm]

Well it’s clear in the text of the Burton Watson translation:

"The way of the bodhisattva is the same as this. As long as a person has not yet heard. Not yet understood. And not yet been able to practice this Lotus Sutra, then you should know that person is still far away from anuttara-samyak-sambodhi. Why? Because all bodhisattvas who attain anuttara-samyak-sambodhi in all cases do so through this sutra. This sutra opens the gate of expedient means and shows the form of true reality. This storehouse of the Lotus Sutra is hidden deep and far away where no person can reach it. But the Buddha, teaching, converting and leading to success the bodhisattvas, opens it up for them.

"Medicine King, if there are bodhisattvas who, on hearing this Lotus Sutra, respond with surprise, doubt and fear, then you should know that they are bodhisattvas who have only newly embarked on their course. And if there are voice-hearers who, on hearing this sutra, respond with surprise, doubt, and fear, then you should know that they are persons of overbearing arrogance.

https://nichiren.info/buddhism/lotussut ... hap10.html

In a sense the Buddha is saying that everything He teaches comes from the Lotus Sutra, even the entirety of Buddhism and vice versa, conceptually we can understand this because everything in Buddhism brings one closer to Enlightenment.

I understand you believe that everything the Buddha taught comes from the Lotus Sutra. But I do not find support for that position in the text you’ve cited. See section 10.31 in the 84000 version. There is no mention of all bodhisattvas attaining buddhahood based on this sūtra. Just to be clear, I do not have doubt, surprise, or fear of what the Buddha taught in the Lotus Sutra. The Buddha’s Dharma is a many faceted gem. The Lotus is one of those facets, but it is only a facet, not the whole gem, not for me. YMMV.

All this section says is:

"It is because this Dharma teaching is the supreme elucidation of the teachings that have an implied meaning of the secret aspect of the Dharma taught by the tathāgatas, arhats, perfectly enlightened buddhas so that the bodhisattva mahāsattvas may attain complete accomplishment."

In other words, in this sūtra, the implied meaning that is revealed is the ekayāna. That's it. This is how it is understood by Maitrya, Śantideva, and other great Indian masters, who are the ones in whom I place my faith when it comes to accurately portraying the meaning of Mahāyāna Dharma.

Moreover, in my tradition, there is a text called the Tantra of the Sole Heir of All Buddhas. This text arises as the sound of dharmatā, the very sound of reality itself, which is self-originated; and it is the text, according to my tradition, that is explicitly responsible for buddhahood of all buddhas. All Dharma teachings come from this tantra alone. I don't expect you to believe this, but this is what this text states.

[Budai]

I believe you fully.

[markatex]

This is still the Nichiren forum, isn’t it? Has there been a rule change that allows anyone to go to any tradition’s sub forum and argue that said tradition is wrong?

[Norwegian]

This is still the Nichiren forum, isn’t it? Has there been a rule change that allows anyone to go to any tradition’s sub forum and argue that said tradition is wrong?

This thread was split and moved from General Mahayana, to this sub forum.

[markatex]

I understand that (although I’m not sure why that was done) but beyond this thread, I’ve noticed a disregard for the idea that in tradition-specific sub forums, that tradition’s teachings are given respect. I’d be willing to bet money this is only happening in the Nichiren forum.

[narhwal90]

The argument at present is relating to interpretation of sutras, and proposed claims that may or may not be present. Since the context of the discussion relates to Nichiren this seems as good a place as any, though general Mahayana might be more appropriate.

[markatex]

In Nichiren Buddhism, the Lotus Sutra is regarded as the Sutra by which all Buddhas attain enlightenment. You can disagree all you like, but that is our position.

Ekayana in Nichiren Buddhism is understood in a very different way than it is in other traditions. Our understanding is that the upaya of other sutras is to be abandoned in favor of the ekayana of the Lotus Sutra, not that all approaches are contained in the Lotus and therefore all approaches are ekayana.

[markatex]

Since the context of the discussion relates to Nichiren this seems as good a place as any, though general Mahayana might be more appropriate.

That’s fine, but since it’s here now, I’ll present the Nichiren view and expect that to be respected here.

[narhwal90]

Questions of how Buddhas become enlightened do not come up in the Nichiren meetings I attend. Perhaps as SGI I do not have credibility among other Nichiren schools- but I don't really care much about that. My reading suggests the sutra is instruction to the bodhisattva.

[SilenceMonkey]

And there's also (obviously) the Prajna Paramita sutras which say Prajna Paramita is the mother of all buddhas, that all buddhas become buddha by relying on the prajna paramita.