After enlightenment, can a Buddha return/manifest/emanate to samsara?

[Nalanda]

And when we say arhats become "formless" sentient beings, are we talking about them going to some realm and staying there for a bit for Bodhisattvas or Buddhas to explain things what's actually going on? (Like the Father in the Lotus Sutra)

or do they immediately enter another rebirth (human? devas?) after their 'parinirvana'? That must be so confusing if they truly believe they've become enlightened.

[Caoimhghín]

And when we say arhats become "formless" sentient beings, are we talking about them going to some realm [...]

Yes. I'll include this citation among my later ones if someone doesn't beat me to it.

[Malcolm]

Higher Bodhisattvas and the Buddhas are also "formless," and merely create "formed" bodies via the powers of their minds. It's a matter of two different kinds of formlessness. The Arhats' minds are constantly preoccupied by their all-emcompassing samādhi. The minds of Āryabodhisattvas are otherwise. Buddhas do not have "minds." My opinion, obv, but one I feel confident defending.

Well the Buddha Dharmakaya obviously have no "minds" right?

But the Sambhogaya do?

And Nirmanayaka clearly do have minds.

The three kāyas are inseparable. The mind of the nirmāṇakāya, nominally speaking, is the dharmakāya.

[Nalanda]

I think tho that that needs to be clarified to beginners. The "mind" of such dharmakaya is not material or has essence? (or is that wrong) Rather, the dharmakaya is emptiness itself, so there cannot be a "mind" that is "something". (Please correct, if this statement is in error)

So going back to Caoimhghín's post, the Buddha does not have a "mind", in the dharmakaya sense. (emptiness) And in the material/nirmanakaya sense.

So when Malcolm says the mind of the nirmanayaka is the dharmakaya, I feel like, yes that's true. But that mind in not "something" or a substance/material.

Plz correct if this is wrong. My reading of Madhyamaka and other materials is introductory level.

[Malcolm]

I think tho that that needs to be clarified to beginners. The "mind" of such dharmakaya is not material or has essence? (or is that wrong) Rather, the dharmakaya is emptiness itself, so there cannot be a "mind" that is "something". (Please correct, if this statement is in error)

So going back to Caoimhghín's post, the Buddha does not have a "mind", in the dharmakaya sense. (emptiness) And in the material/nirmanakaya sense.

So when Malcolm says the mind of the nirmanayaka is the dharmakaya, I feel like, yes that's true. But that mind in not "something" or a substance/material.

Plz correct if this is wrong. My reading of Madhyamaka and other materials is introductory level.

The dharmakāya is the realization of emptiness. But there are various opinions on whether buddhas have thoughts or not.

[Nalanda]

Malcolm, I had posted in the previous page what a sravaka might say about all of this. I wonder if there are historical arguments from Mahayana/TB on this:

(about arhat not being actually final enlightenment/nirvana, only leading to formless realm, and reborn to do the Bodhisattva path...)

I think the sravakas would ask "If that's all true, why would the historical Buddha Shakyamuni not teach the actual path? Yeah yeah okay, 500 years before Nagarjuna, people are not as sharp in mental faculties, but why bother teaching the sravaka path at all considering it sounds a lot like the Jain vehicle? So either that's the case, or maybe your team's calculations is off a bit and that the Buddha Shakyamuni was actually right and sravaka is the path he taught in the buddhavacana."

[Malcolm]

Malcolm, I had posted in the previous page what a sravaka might say about all of this. I wonder if there are historical arguments from Mahayana/TB on this:

(about arhat not being actually final enlightenment/nirvana, only leading to formless realm, and reborn to do the Bodhisattva path...)

I think the sravakas would ask "If that's all true, why would the historical Buddha Shakyamuni not teach the actual path? Yeah yeah okay, 500 years before Nagarjuna, people are not as sharp in mental faculties, but why bother teaching the sravaka path at all considering it sounds a lot like the Jain vehicle? So either that's the case, or maybe your team's calculations is off a bit and that the Buddha Shakyamuni was actually right and sravaka is the path he taught in the buddhavacana."

I didn't say arhats took birth in the formless realm, that is a samsaric place. Their samadhi of cessation resembles such a state. I honestly don't care what people who belong the śrāvakayāna would say to this.

[Caoimhghín]

They are "appearances" of minds and forms, not "true" minds and forms. Please give me a bit to substantiate this, as I realize it's a radical statement.

Apologies for the length. If you give it a read, I do think it's a worthwhile wall-of-text. Scholars believe (on good grounds IMO) that this is actually a very old piece of Mahāsāṃghika commentary on the Mahāvastu. The present redaction comes to us in the form of a Mahāyāna sūtra:

[...] it is in conformity with the ways of the world that I teach.

The wisdom of the Buddha cannot be measured and the teachings of the Buddha are uncountable. The arhats and the pratyekabuddhas cannot know, how much less so the worldly people. The worldly people act out of attachment, but the Buddha acts without attachment. It is only the Buddhas who know the Buddhas. Just as the sutras say about the mind, the wisdom and also the body of the Buddha. What causes the Buddha to appear in the world? By what causes is it known?

Although the Buddha abides in the world but he does not attach to it, he is a light to the world. All his bodily actions, words of the mouth and thoughts of the mind are in conformity with the ways of the world. Thus he cultivated his mind. No one can surpass the teachings of the Buddhas and no one can achieve the works of the Buddha. It is in conformity with the ways of the world, but there are none who know. The Buddha, out of compassion for the people of the ten directions, illuminates the world by preaching the Dharma in accordance with the likes of the world.

The Bodhisattva was not born from the sexual union of father and mother. His body is magically produced, like illusion. He makes a show of having father and mother. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha has an immeasurable light which illuminates the ten cardinal directions. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes a show of having a light of seven chi only.

The Buddha has never touched the ground with his feet, but the marks imprint on the ground. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

Since many thousand myriad kotis of asamkhyeyakalpas ago the Buddha has accomplished prajnaparamita. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he made a show of being a small boy.

The Buddha illuminates men of the ten directions in darkness. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes a show of having a wife and a child.

When the bodhisattva was born and walked on the ground he uttered the words: “In the whole world no-one surpasses me! I shall deliver men of the ten directions!” It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

Some ask that since the prince sat at the foot of a tree in Jambudvipa, there had been six years of suffering with endeavour. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes a show of suffering.

The Buddha sat alone at the foot of the tree when he is about to attain enlightenment. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he emits rays of light to inform Mara of his state.

The Buddha accomplished wisdom which is equal to all Buddhas and there are none who can surpass it. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes a show of having obtained Buddhahood and sits in peaceful seclusion.

The purpose of attaining Buddhahood is to preach the Dharma in order to save the people of the ten directions out of compassion. But the Brahma Sahampati pleads the Buddha to deliver the Dharma to people. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

There is nothing which can either increase or decrease the wisdom of the Buddha. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes a show of having more or less wisdom.

The Buddha abides in tathata and emptiness so he does not come and does not go. It is in conformity with the ways of the world to say that the Buddha appears in the world and enters into parinirvana. This is just a show.

The Buddha abides nowhere just as the empty space that abides nowhere. It is in conformity with the ways of the world to say that the Buddha lives. It is only a show.

The Buddha’s feet, like lotus flowers, do not get dirty, but the Buddha washes his feet. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha’s body, like gold, does not get dirty, but the Buddha makes a show of taking a bath. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha’s mouth is fundamentally clean, with a fragrance like that of kunkuma. Nevertheless the Buddha cleans his mouth with poplar twigs. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha has never been hungry. Because of compassion for men of the ten directions (to gain merit) he manifests hunger to them. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The body of the Buddha, like diamond, is pure without blemish and human waste, but he makes a show to men of having human waste. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha’s body never grows decrepit with age. He is only endowed with all virtues, yet he makes a show of having a body which grows decrepit with age. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha’s body has never suffered illness, yet he manifests illness, summons doctors and takes medicine. The giver of the medicine obtains immeasurable blessings. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The strength of the Buddha cannot be resisted and he can shake the Buddhafields of the ten directions with one finger, but he makes a show to men of being tired and decrepit. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha can fly to numerous Buddhafields within one thought moment, but he makes a show of tiredness. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The body of the Buddha is like an illusion, the Dharma is his body, but he makes a show to men of having an imperfect human body. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha in reality is empty, but he makes a show of appearance in accordance with the likes (and the dislikes) of the world. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The physical strength of the Buddha is immeasurable and in fact, there is no sitting up, walking, lying down or going out. But he makes a show to men of sitting up, walking, lying down or going out. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The body of the Buddha is in fact never affected by cold or heat, (but he makes a show of) adjusting to the cold or heat. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes a show.

The Buddha is like empty space. He makes a show to others of always wearing clothes without ever taking them off, just as the men of the Brahma heavens always wear clothes. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha’s head has never had its hair shaved off. He simply shows it to others, yet nobody sees it being removed with a razor. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha never rests (lit. sits), but he makes a show to men of sitting on a stone because of tiredness. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha has a mark of deliciousness in his throat so he is never hungry. But out of compassion for the people of the ten directions, he accepts even the coarse food offered by people. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show

The blessings of the Buddha’s merits are inexhaustible, and no one can surpass them. The Buddha enters the city for piṇḍapāta, and leaves with an empty bowl. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The blessings of the Buddha’s merits are inexhaustible, if he wishes he can get all the good clothes in the world and in the heaven, but he purposely wears patched cloth. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha can get a house, a bed, treasure from Earth and Heaven and palace if he so wishes, but he makes a show of meditation by sitting on grass in the open to the worldly people. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha has the divine power to dry up the water in the sea by blowing, (but he makes a show of) holding an umbrella when it rains. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha can disappear within a thought moment so that many thousands myriad of Maras will not know where he has gone, but he makes a show to men of being tempted by Mara’s daughters. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha knows all the dharmas of the countless Buddhas of the ten directions, but he makes a show to men of inquiring again and again. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha, out of compassion for men of the ten directions, appears in the world to teach and to save (people). He also makes a show to men that one will get immeasurable merits by making offerings (to a Buddha). It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha fundamentally is empty, but he makes a show of having such a body in accordance with the colour (lit. rupa) that the world likes. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The sound of the thunderbolts of the ten directions in combination cannot move even one hair of the Buddha, but he makes a show of being in a quiet place in order to enter samadhi. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The dharmas have the designation ‘empty’, but the Buddha makes a show to men of numerous dharmas. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha is never out of samadhi even when he ponders over eternity or nihility, but he makes a show to men of preaching various kinds of dharmas. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

What one does good or bad in the former life one will get the result in the following life. The Buddha makes a show to men that one will get the consequences of one’s own action. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha understands that there is no person in the world and there is no form with regard to existence, but he makes a show of saving numerous people. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha understands that all the dharmas are fundamentally empty and that even the essence of them is empty, but he makes a show to men that there are birth and death. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

Fundamentally, there is no this life or the next life, but the Buddha makes a show to men of the existence of this life and the next life. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The combination of the five aggregates, the six ayatanas and the four great elements makes nothing but emptiness, but the Buddha makes a show to men of kamadhatu, mpadhatu, arupyadhatu. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

Fundamentally, there is no man in the past, present and future, but the Buddha makes a show of a man endowed with birth and death among the five kinds of sentient beings. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha makes a show to men of having completely eliminated ignorance and of a man making offerings. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha knows the essence of all the dharmas of the past, present and future, but he makes a show to men that there are dharmas that can be taught and dharmas that cannot be taught. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha knows that from the beginning to the end all dharmas are profound, but he explains them in sequence (e.g. from easy to difficult). It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

What the Buddha taught is none other than (the truth) and the four noble truths are expounded in accordance with the inclination of individuals. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The bhiksu sangha is difficult to split, even thousand myriad of Maras and evil forces cannot split it, but the Buddha makes a show to men of the bhiksu sangha being split by men. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Dharma is nothing but empty, there is neither teacher from whom to learn nor learners, but the Buddha makes a show to men of the Dharma, those who have taken the ordination and those who have not. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show

There is nothing but emptiness and there is also no liberation from the world, but the Buddha makes a show to men of being a liberated person. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha went to nowhere after parinirvāṇa and the Arhats went to nowhere after parinirvāṇa, but the Buddha makes a show to men of preaching the Dharma. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show,

The Buddha taught that there is no birth and no extinction. This is the essence. There is also no gain or loss. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha taught that nirvāṇa is like the blowing out of (the fire of) the lamp, there is no form. But only the name exists, and nobody can destroy the Dharma. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha knows well that all dharmas are without a form, but he makes a show to men of preaching many dharmas. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddhas do not attach to anything in their minds and are never out of samadhi, but they make a show to men of having thoughts. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha has completely eliminated all evils and has only the merits in fullness, but he makes a show to men of having the remaining effects of bad karma. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha’s bodily actions, the words of mouth, the thoughts of his mind and his wisdom all are nothing (but empty), but he makes a show to men asking the bhiksus to preach and himself wishing to listen. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The power (lit. wisdom) of understanding of the Buddha is limitless and the past, present and future are all empty. But the Buddha makes a show to men of delivering the Dharma according to the likes of individuals. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

All Buddhas have one body, the body of the Dharma, but they make a show of preaching the Dharma to men. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that the Buddha makes such a show.

Buddhas, Pratyekabuddhas, Arhats, and those who have no attainments appear to be in samsdra or attain nirvana. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha makes a show of preaching the Dharma in completeness to the Arhats, but he knows that though it is complete it is not as good as the all-knowing. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

No one surpasses the wisdom of the Buddha who knows that there is no past, present and future, but he makes a show of the causes and effects and of preaching the Dharma. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

If someone wishes to know the Buddha and his teachings he should do it by way of penetrating the essence (which is emptiness). Such a person knows the Buddha. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that the Buddha makes such a show.

The bodhisattva never enters into and never comes out from the womb of his mother. Why? Because the suchness of the Dharma pervades everywhere. The bodhisattva only makes a show to men of entering into the mothers womb. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

There is no arising of the enjoyment of the Dharma and even no arising of the Dharma. The bodhisattva makes a show to men of being newly born. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The bodhisattva was in meditation of emptiness in the womb of his mother experiencing the entire one Buddhafield, but he makes a show to men of being born due to some causes. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha can manifest himself in numerous bodies and appear in countless Buddhafields, but the body of the Buddha neither increases nor decreases. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The bodhisattva always manifests himself (in the world) and never stops. The essence is empty so he abides there without making endeavour. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The wisdom, merit and power of the Buddha are immeasurable, but he makes a show of having limited lifespan to let people know (the work of karma?). It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The suchness of the Dharma cannot be surpassed because the past, present and future are empty. The Buddha makes a show to men of respecting the Dharma. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The suchness of (the Dharma) is without birth and extinction, but the Buddha makes a show to men of conditions being in extinction. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

There is no arising of the Dharma and it exists without form, but the Buddha makes a show of the Dharma. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

Observing the nature (of the Dharma) it can never be seen, but the Buddha makes a show to men of seeing all, knowing all and understanding all. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

There is no creator to all the dharmas and also there is no arising of it, but the Buddha makes a show to men of dharmas which have no arising. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

Nirvana and emptiness are without form, sound and name, but the Buddha makes a show of having (the physical body consisted of) the four great elements endowed with form and sound. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The strength of the Buddha is incomparable and immeasurable without decrease, but he makes a show to men of being old and decrepit who seeks help from others. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha is equally compassionate to all and there are no calamities or any poverty, but he makes a show to the foolish men of not doing anything. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha has accomplished all the merits, but he makes a show of having little merit. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The nature (of the Dharma) arises from nowhere and it produces nothing, but the Buddha makes a show of three doors (of past, present and future). It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha makes a show of the beginning and the end without obstacles, no one can surpass his merit. He also makes a show to men of one who accepts offerings without making distinction and makes a show of no attachment. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

Any one sincerely and earnestly calls the Buddha in his mind, the Buddha will appear before him, but the Buddha has no abode. The Buddha makes a show of practicing the path of bodhisattva. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

The Buddha has saved immeasurable asamkhyeya people, but he has saved none. Why? Because it is fundamentally empty. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show.

(Lokānuvartanasūtra T807, full translation at p.291-293 of the appendices here)

There is a very important bit from the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra that I'd like to finish this with, but it will take me a while to post it, then no more overlong quotations, I swear!

One of the sections I have bolded up there is "...but he makes a show to men of having the remaining effects of bad karma." I am thinking of this when I bold that:

"Of all forms of disease, none is greater than that of having a body — he extinguished the body. Of all forms of torment, none is more severe than that of having a calculating mind — he erased it and submerged in the vacuous. The mind is taxed by the body; the body is burdened by the intellect. The two pull each other, turning like a wheel on the endless road of misery. It is said in a sutra, 'The intellect is poison, the body is shackles. Because of them the abysmal silence of liberation remains beyond reach; they are the cause of all tribulations.'"
(Venerable Zhào 肇論 Zhào's Essays T1858.158a4, translated by translated by Rafal Felbur)

Furthermore, the Wisdom Treatise says "Furthermore, the city of the gandharvas is not a city; it is the mind of the person who sees it as such. In the same way, fools conceive of that which is not a body as a body and as a mind that which is not a mind."

The Diamond Sūtra says:
Those who by my form did see me,
And those who followed me by voice
Wrong the efforts they engaged in,
Me those people will not see.

From the Dharma should one see the Buddhas,
From the Dharma body comes their guidance.
Yet Dharma's true nature cannot be discerned,
And no one can be conscious of it as an object.
(Conze translation)

I would add "those who by mind did intuit me" to "those who by form did see me."

[Caoimhghín]

(T1858.158a4, translated by translated by Rafal Felbur)

My Taisho citation is off, and begins at "Now, names do not arise in a vacuum, designations do not arise by themselves. The designations found in the sutras, 'nirvana with remainder' and 'nirvana without remainder,' must be, respectively, the true name for the return to the root and the wondrous designation for the way of spirit. Allow me to speak of these in turn" in the BDK translation published as Three Short Treatises by Vasubandhu, Sengzhao, and Zongmi. Hopefully that is the extent of the errata.

And when we say arhats become "formless" sentient beings, are we talking about them going to some realm [...]

Yes. I'll include this citation among my later ones if someone doesn't beat me to it.

The citation:

Inquiry: In the Arhats' past lives, the causes and conditions for being subject to embodiment necessarily ought to have been eradicated. In light of this, they dwell where to perfect buddhahood?

Response: When attaining Arhatship, the three realms' myriad outflows' causes and conditions are exhausted. There is no more birth again in the three realms. There is a pure buddhafield, beyond the three realms, where not even the word "affliction" has a name. In this kingdom of the Buddha, they hear the Dharma Flower Sūtra [i.e. the Lotus Sūtra]. With this, they perfect Buddhahood. As in the Dharma Flower Sūtra's words: "There are Arhats, for example, who’ve not heard the Dharma Flower Sūtra, themselves they call 'ones who have attained cessation;' I in another realm for them speak this matter, that they all shall become Samyaksaṁbuddhas."

(Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, i.e. "the Wisdom Treatise," T1509.714a9)

There is a very important bit from the Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra that I'd like to finish this with, but it will take me a while to post it, then no more overlong quotations, I swear!

This quotation will take me longer, as it involves interfacing with a physical copy of a book. Either way, my promise of no more "overlong" quotations was definitely a lie in retrospect. Consider this a confession.

[Zhen Li]

This quotation will take me longer, as it involves interfacing with a physical copy of a book. Either way, my promise of no more "overlong" quotations was definitely a lie in retrospect. Consider this a confession.

Please feel free, I for one appreciate these references, as they are quite interesting. The Lokānuvartana quotation sounds a lot like standard Mahāyāna discourse on the show of the Buddha's deeds, but, as you indicate the key is the "appearance" of having a mind.

Your references to śrāvaka arhats being born in a Buddhafield after their "nirvāṇa" are also interesting.

Indrajala (Jeffrey Kotyk) has an entry about this: http://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/ ... ekabuddhas

He writes:

As to his metaphysical reasoning for absolute cessation of all existence being untenable he explains in greater detail why there is no 'end of ashes and eternal cessation' (無灰斷永滅) for the two vehicles in his work entitled the Commentary on the Undiscriminated Mahāyāna Dharmadhātu Śāstra 《大乘法界無差別論疏》 by citing a passage from the Ghana-vyūha-sūtra 《密嚴經》 and elaborating the metaphysical reasons why such a permanent cessation is untenable.

A verse in the Ghana-vyūha-sūtra states, “If nirvāṇa were cessation, then a sentient being will have a complete end. If a sentient being has an end, then there should also be a beginning time. There should be a non-sentient dharma that starts being a sentient being.” Interpretation – This is the holy teaching and is also the right principle. If one were to enter into extinction, the two vehicles' 'end of ashes and eternal cessation', then this sentient being would become a non-sentient being. If a sentient being is made into a non-sentient being, then there should be non-sentient beings beginning to be sentient beings.

Fazang is arguing here that arhats and pratyekabuddhas cannot achieve an absolute cessation – that is to say, using his vocabulary, becoming a non-sentient entity – because it would follow that since a sentient entity could become a non-sentient entity, then a non-sentient entity should be able to become a sentient entity. If a sentient being has an ultimate absolute end, then it should also have a beginning according to him. For Fazang this would be equal to saying that an uncontaminated dharma could give rise to a contaminated dharma. He references the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra to demonstrate this point.

In the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra it is explained that [if it is suggested that] the contaminated is produced in the uncontaminated, then the criticism is that there are no uncontaminated phenomena still producing the contaminated. Now the precedent is the same since sentient beings would enter cessation and be the same as a 'non-sentient being', [but] there are no 'non-sentient being' phenomena that still produce sentient beings.

One could respond by asking if a sentient being is doomed to exist as such without any possibility of transcending the state of being a sentient being. Moreover, how is it a sentient being becomes a buddha which is not a sentient being? Again, one must take into consideration the context in which this argument is being put forth. Fazang is arguing that sentient beings by virtue of being sentient entities cannot become non-sentient entities completely detached from reality, isolated in a nirvāṇa apart from all other beings. Sentient beings can, however, attain buddhahood where while not being a 'sentient being' they still actively interact with reality and all the sentient beings within it. This is an emotionally charged idea that one can still work within saṃsāra without being adversely affected by it.

Fazang's own sentiments are clear in the following statement by him:

Seeing that form is emptiness manifests great wisdom and one does not abide in saṃsāra. Seeing that emptiness is form manifests great compassion and one does not abide in nirvāṇa. When form and emptiness are non-dual, compassion and wisdom are not different.

And another quote of Fazang on this topic:

Furthermore, the Śrīmālā-sūtra, Anuttarāśraya-sūtra, Treatise on Buddha Nature and Ratnagotravibhāga-mahāyānōttaratantra-śāstra all likewise explain [the rebirth of arhats and pratyekabuddhas) outside the three realms. Śrāvaka, pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas of great power receive three kinds of transformation bodies. Furthermore, the Mahāprājñā-pāramitôpadeśa, quoting the third scroll of the Lotus Sūtra, explains that there is an excellent pure land beyond the three realms. Arhats are born within it. It is thus that we know for certain that the cessation of the two vehicles is the cessation of the coarse delimited saṃsāra which they call entering nirvāṇa. In truth they will possess a transformation body in the pure land, receive the Buddha's teachings and practice the bodhisattva path. If this were not so, then at the time they had not turned their minds [to the Mahāyāna) they would have no transformation (body), but upon turning their minds [to the Mahāyāna) they would be gradually realized bodhisattvas. They would not be called 'two vehicles'. Thus we know that it is outside the three realms that they receive the transformation (body). The Hīnayāna thinks this is nirvāṇa. The Mahāyāna [has] a deeper explanation. In truth it is a transformation (body they receive]. Fundamentally there is no nirvāṇa [as the Hīnayāna would understand it]. The Śrīmālā-sūtra states that śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas in truth have no nirvāṇa. It is only the tathāgata who has nirvāṇa.[1] This treatise [the Dasheng Fajie Wuchabie Lun 大乘法界無差別論] states below, “It should be understood that there is only the single vehicle path. If this were not so, it would be different from this as there would be another nirvāṇa. The same dharma-dhātu – how could there be an inferior nirvāṇa and a most excellent nirvāṇa?”[2] It is through these [citations] that we should understand that since those of the two vehicles (arhats and pratyekabuddhas) have no nirvāṇa, they will all attain bodhi, and thus all sentient beings are the object [of the aforementioned teaching).

[Caoimhghín]

This quotation will take me longer, as it involves interfacing with a physical copy of a book. Either way, my promise of no more "overlong" quotations was definitely a lie in retrospect. Consider this a confession.

Please feel free, I for one appreciate these references, as they are quite interesting. The Lokānuvartana quotation sounds a lot like standard Mahāyāna discourse on the show of the Buddha's deeds, but, as you indicate the key is the "appearance" of having a mind.

I'm having quite a time finding it. In the meantime:

As the ocean reflects the bodies of sentient beings,
Which is the reason for its being called the great ocean,
Bodhi reflects all mental activity,
Therefore it is called perfect enlightenment.
(Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra section translated as "Manifestation of the Tathāgata," translated by Ven Cheng Chien, p. 121)

He is the teacher of gods and men, but he is neither a god nor a man. The ocean reflects the bodies of sentient beings, but is not itself the bodies of sentient beings. Bodhi reflects all mental activity like the Buddha uttering all of the sounds by uttering one of the sounds, but Bodhi itself is not all mental activity, and the "one sound" of the Dharma is not, in truth, all sounds. IMO, of course. I'll see in the next few weeks if I can find the passage I was actually thinking about earlier.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The three kāyas are inseparable. The mind of the nirmāṇakāya, nominally speaking, is the dharmakāya.

Like nested Russian dolls

[Nalanda]

Arhat liberation is not nirvāṇa

We (Mahayanist) can say it like that, without clarification? I mean I heard some make a distinction between nirvana and great nirvana or compassion and great compassion. This is to allow for sravaka to use/say nirvana and compassion applying to them and Mahayanists being able to say "Okay, true but its not the same Greater Nirvana or Greater Compassion."

But is it okay to just say "Sravaka nirvana? That's not even nirvana"

This seems like a rather radical departure from the buddhavacana texts. Unless I'm mistaken.

[Zhen Li]

Arhat liberation is not nirvāṇa

We (Mahayanist) can say it like that, without clarification? I mean I heard some make a distinction between nirvana and great nirvana or compassion and great compassion. This is to allow for sravaka to use/say nirvana and compassion applying to them and Mahayanists being able to say "Okay, true but its not the same Greater Nirvana or Greater Compassion."

But is it okay to just say "Sravaka nirvana? That's not even nirvana"

This seems like a rather radical departure from the buddhavacana texts. Unless I'm mistaken.

Yes, the Nirvana Sutra uses the term Great Nirvana for the nirvana of the Buddha which is equivalent to Buddha nature and Dharma body.

[Nalanda]

They are "appearances" of minds and forms, not "true" minds and forms. Please give me a bit to substantiate this, as I realize it's a radical statement.

I don't really find that radical. I already assumed from my understanding of the trikaya that the dharmakaya buddha is without a mind or form.

I do have questions about the other things said in that quote.

“The Buddha’s body never grows decrepit with age. He is only endowed with all virtues, yet he makes a show of having a body which grows decrepit with age.”

Is this “Buddha” here the other 2 of the trikaya bodies? If so, that would make sense. Or is this referring to the nirmanakaya body itself? Is it saying that the disciples were looking at a body that was immortal and does not age but it appears to them as a “normal aging” body?

“The Buddha went to nowhere after parinirvāṇa and the Arhats went to nowhere after parinirvāṇa, but the Buddha makes a show to men of preaching the Dharma. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show”

But we were talking about arhats going somewhere....where did they go? They become formless beings right? And are reborn right? Where?

“The Buddha makes a show of preaching the Dharma in completeness to the Arhats, but he knows that though it is complete it is not as good as the all-knowing.”

All knowing means? That the sravaka path isn't really complete-complete?

“The Buddha can manifest himself in numerous bodies and appear in countless Buddhafields, but the body of the Buddha neither increases nor decreases.”

Is this talking about the Dharmakaya Buddha can manifest as sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya in plurality?

[Malcolm]

I do have questions about the other things said in that quote.

“The Buddha’s body never grows decrepit with age. He is only endowed with all virtues, yet he makes a show of having a body which grows decrepit with age.”

Is this “Buddha” here the other 2 of the trikaya bodies? If so, that would make sense. Or is this referring to the nirmanakaya body itself? Is it saying that the disciples were looking at a body that was immortal and does not age but it appears to them as a “normal aging” body?

It refers to the sambhogakāya.

[Caoimhghín]

They are "appearances" of minds and forms, not "true" minds and forms. Please give me a bit to substantiate this, as I realize it's a radical statement.

I don't really find that radical. I already assumed from my understanding of the trikaya that the dharmakaya buddha is without a mind or form.

IMO, something that makes it extra radical (it's quite alright if you don't find it radical) is that this is such a "primitive" sutra. It does not necessarily presume the three-body framework. Much like the Lotus Sutra, in which the three-body framework never appears (it's also quite primitive in its way), modern Buddhists have to read the trikaya into the text, rather than it naturally being there of its own accord. Because the trikaya is not in the Lotus, many argue that the Lotus has a very high buddhology, merging and melting the kayas into one in a show of "the inseparability of the three bodies." This has certainly been a very historically-influential way to read the text. Exegeses by Tendai masters, by Nichiren Buddhists, and by figures like Venerable Vasubadhu make references of that sort, that the text contains the complete unity of the threefold body. The threefold body, however, is materially nowhere in the text. It is philosophically present, one could definitively argue, but the actual wording of a threefold division is not there.

I do have questions about the other things said in that quote.

As long as you keep in mind that all I can give you is opinions (hopefully informed ones!), then I can answer them.

“The Buddha’s body never grows decrepit with age. He is only endowed with all virtues, yet he makes a show of having a body which grows decrepit with age.”

Is this “Buddha” here the other 2 of the trikaya bodies? If so, that would make sense. Or is this referring to the nirmanakaya body itself? Is it saying that the disciples were looking at a body that was immortal and does not age but it appears to them as a “normal aging” body?

I think it's just referring to "the Buddha," not to a particular body. If we insist on the three-bodies framework, then anything in the text could be talking about any body, since it never specifies buddha-bodies. As I write this, Malcolm posted a response to one of your questions, identifying the text to be talking about the Sambhogakaya in this particular place. I'm guessing that this is because the text describes the Buddha as "endowed with all virtues," as the Dharmakaya can be spoken of as "unadorned" in contrast. There are other texts however, which speak to adornments of the Dharmakaya, so the matter is quite ambiguous, as I see it.

If you want someone qualified to definitively explain which parts of this sutra refer to which buddha-bodies, I am not so qualified. It isn't clear to me whether this section is talking about the Sambhogakaya or the Dharmakaya, but it is clear that the body which grows decrepit with age is the display that the Buddha makes to the world (which is later called "the nirmanakaya").

I think the modern Mahayana way to interface with this text would be to argue that the physical body of the Buddha was merely an appearance, or "a show" as the sutra puts it frequently. The sutra depicts the Buddha as "non-physical" but appearing physical (for the sake of living beings/in conformity with the ways of the world). Whether we further filter this through a trikaya buddhology is a matter of utility.

“The Buddha went to nowhere after parinirvāṇa and the Arhats went to nowhere after parinirvāṇa, but the Buddha makes a show to men of preaching the Dharma. It is in conformity with the ways of the world that he makes such a show”

But we were talking about arhats going somewhere....where did they go? They become formless beings right? And are reborn right? Where?

Sage Zhao calls the Buddha, after Parinirvana, "gone to a distant abode" (paraphrase). Now, we aren't supposed to take this seriously per se in the context of his essays. He is often describing a lesser buddhology that he then critiques later.

Once, upon seeing the Buddha in deep samadhi, various devaputras (godlings, lesser gods) commented on the wondrous sight:

第五天子復說偈言：
「觀彼三昧定， 善住於正受，
解脫離諸塵， 不踊亦不沒，
其心安隱住， 而得心解脫。」
The fifth godling then spoke another gāthā, saying:
"Observe the establishment of his samādhi.
Virtuously, he dwells in the samāpatti.
He is freed, departing from all (obscuring) dusts.
He does not leap forward. He does not pull back.
His citta is at peace in a hidden dwelling
and he has attained the release of the citta."

(Samyuktagama Sutra No. 1289)

The gods cannot feel the Buddha's mind when he is in deep samadhi, let alone after his display of Parinirvana. "Where did the fire go after it was extinguished?"

The specific Dharma that I think this section is referring to when it says "mak[ing] a show to men of preaching the Dharma" (returning back to the sutra that isn't from the Samyuktagama) is "the display of Parinirvana." We can speak of "the Dharma," but also of "dharmas" (in the sense of 'phenomena') and "Dharmas" in the sense of "bits of the teaching."

Malcolm is quite free to disagree, as this is potentially misusing a statement he made, but earlier he pointed out that...

Mahāyāna nonabiding nirvana can encompass the display of parnirvana.

...I consider this to be much the same line of thought as in that scripture. Also, in the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha states that he will not enter Parinirvana, yet is about to make a show of entering Parinirvana for the sake of sentient beings. How so? He makes a show, according to that text, so that sentient beings will not become idle and come to think of the appearance of the Tathagata as something common, to be taken for granted. If the sentient beings always saw the Buddha in constant splendour, they would simply worship the Tathagata and would not actually practice the Buddhist path, as I understand that section of the sutra (Ch 16 in the Chinese, 15 in the Sanskrit). Furthermore, if the sentient beings saw the Buddha as he truly is, bedecked with a universal halo that illuminates all the world, many would lose hope that they will ever become like him. The Wisdom Treatise makes the interesting claim that if the Buddha did not hide his halo, lesser beings would be always blinded (the claim is interesting, because it stresses that the author believes that the Buddha's halo is "real light," i.e. not mentally-perceived light, i.e. "electromagnetic radiation" to a modern).

“The Buddha makes a show of preaching the Dharma in completeness to the Arhats, but he knows that though it is complete it is not as good as the all-knowing.”

All knowing means? That the sravaka path isn't really complete-complete?

Not from a Mahayana perspective no. As I see things, the Arhats are a variety of Buddha who attains a variety of Nirvana. They obtain Nirvana concerning all of the afflictions. They do not obtain Nirvana if we frame "Nirvana" exclusively as freedom from the ignorance that is afflictive and the ignorance that is non-afflictive. Earlier, Zhen Li noted that the Nirvana Sutra depicts Arhats as not obtaining "Great Nirvana." This can be interpreted as the Arhats obtaining Nirvana, but not "Great Nirvana." Alternatively, "Great Nirvana" may just be a shortform for "Maha(pari)nirvana," with the "pari" morpheme omitted in the translation.

Regardless if we consider the Nirvana and Buddhahood of the Arhats to be "authentic" or not, either way, the liberation of the Arhats is not "anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi," or "unexcelled complete and final" awakening. Their vehicle culminates in Arhathood. Bodhisattvayana cultimates in anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. This kind of awakening is known only by the Samyaksaṃbuddhas, not by the lesser Bodhisattvas, the lesser Pratyekabuddhas, etc.

One notable exception is Bodhisattvas who are, in truth, emanations of Samyaksaṃbuddhas. These likely have anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi but make a show of lesser degrees of awakening for the sake of sentient beings. Aryavalokitesvara appears, for instance, as a non-Buddhist to some non-Buddhists, in the interest of leading them to the Buddha. That would be an example of a display of non-awakening by an awakened being responding to the needs of sentients.

“The Buddha can manifest himself in numerous bodies and appear in countless Buddhafields, but the body of the Buddha neither increases nor decreases.”

Is this talking about the Dharmakaya Buddha can manifest as sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya in plurality?

He can manifest many bodies. He also does so in the Lotus Sutra, but these bodies are not identified within it as "nirmanakayas." They are simply called "emanations" or "emanated bodies" or "variegated bodies." Whether they are or not is unrelated to whether the text calls them such, but the text does not call them such all the same. Similarly, in the misnamed Brahmajala vaipulya, Vairocana Tathagata emanates many Sakyamunis. These are not outrightly called "nirmanakayas" in that text either. The body of the Buddha which "neither increases nor decreases" can be reasonably assigned to the category of "the Dharmakaya," but the text is primitive, as I said before, and does not have such a sophisticated buddhology stated outright. "Neither increases nor decreases" can also be simply taken as a statement of the emptiness of the Buddha's body, without involving the Dharmakaya in the analysis.

I hope that answers some questions. This is all my own opinion. There are bits of Dharma in it, but I can't vouch for the entirety of my response. In short, I think that this text presumes a more primitive twofold buddhology, rupakaya and dharmakaya, and does not materially presume threefold buddhology. It doesn't have a "Sambhogakaya" materially in it. That doesn't mean that the Buddha has no "Sambhogakaya" or that parts of the sutra aren't referring to it without naming it.

[Nalanda]

...radical...

Caoimhghín, thanks for the thoughtful response. I agree, the fact that the text is so ancient is quite radical. The paper I'm reading right now deals with a later development of the trikaya bodies but this text presumably predates this 'developmental' period. (I'm assuming that this text is indeed sourced from the Mahasamghikas.)

All of this begs the question, since there are normal/natural/organic people, Bodhisattvas and Buddhas, are there then people, Bodhisattvas and Buddhas who, aren't really "organic" but merely "for show", mere emanations?

For example, let's assume the B Alan Wallace is a truly organic/normal development from a non-believer, to Buddhism, to Boddhisatva and someday, full Buddha. However, the Dalai Lama (the current one) is actually an ancient Buddha who is only making a "show" as a Tibetan Buddhist Gelug monk? And while we're at it, Sam Harris, a rabid atheist but 'Dzogchen' teacher, could be a mere emanation of an actual ancient Bodhisattva and is only making an appearance as a Los Angeles scientist-skeptic so that this Bodhisattva (who is 'animating' Sam Harris) could connect to many secular/skeptics and bring them closer to buddhadharma?

Is that the general view, is that right? or is this a stretch to say?

[Caoimhghín]

I mean, it becomes a possible issue when we start labelling apparently-non-buddhic organic persons as possibly inorganic, but certainly it's possible, on one level, that anything could be an emanation from the Buddhas. The possible issues in talking too much about that is that we might end up reinforcing the delusions of the mentally ill that they are such a buddhic display. Nonetheless, barring narcissism leavened by mental illness, there is a lesson in there on terms of treating all sentients with a great deal of reverence, like the Bodhisattva "Never Disparaging" from the Lotus. You never know when one's a Buddha, rhetorically speaking. That's an awfully high standard to live by, and one very difficult to maintain. IMO, treating sentient beings generally with more dignity is easier than pretending that the lot of them are fully realized Buddhas.

In general, when we see someone clearly in a lot of personal distress, dealing in constant negativity and perhaps even wickedness, slandering goodness let alone the Dharma: they are probably not a Buddhic display. I suppose there's always some antinomian possibility that it is a teaching moment, but most likely not, and I feel rather confident in saying that. Wicked fascists in governance, corrupt officials, run-of-the-mill narcissists, are likely not to be Buddhic displays for the benefit of sentient beings, the same goes for other classic villain-archetypes and other baddies we can think of. Normal sentient beings likely have normal sentient being thoughts running around in their head. Sure, there is an abstract possibility that what appears to be a person might actually be a divine sock puppet of a saviour, but it just makes sense to treat sentient beings as sentient beings IMO. If a Buddha went to all the trouble to create an emanation that is identical to a normal sentient being, probably it's for the best that it is treated as a sentient being. There would be absolutely no way to know either way anyways.

[leronkattan]

Buddha said...

“I consider the positions of kings and rulers as that of dust motes. I observe treasures of gold and gems as so many bricks and pebbles. I look upon the finest silken robes as tattered rags. I see myriad worlds of the universe as small seeds of fruit, and the greatest lake in India as a drop of oil on my foot. I perceive the teachings of the world to be the illusion of magicians. I discern the highest conception of emancipation as a golden brocade in a dream, and view the holy path of the illuminated ones as flowers appearing in one’s eyes. I see meditation as a pillar of a mountain, Nirvana as a nightmare of daytime. I look upon the judgment of right and wrong as the serpentine dance of a dragon, and the rise and fall of beliefs as but traces left by the four seasons.”

"Buddhas move freely through birth and death, appearing and disappearing at will."
Bodhiddharma