Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 4228
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Minobu »

Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
The Lotus dates from First c. BCE ~ First c. CE.
So, it is not even the Buddha's teaching. Make it all rather moot then.
all Mahayana sutras as you know start with thus i heard.
there is a danger that the defilement of the etymology and origin of the teachings leads to confusion and disbelief.

A lot of various cultures where Buddhism ended up in morphed the teachings into their own.
so we end up with many practices that are not altogether Buddhist in their origin, even if labeled as such.
those people tend decide what is buddhist and what is not.

It's like what you said on ESangha about placing Krishna as the source of a teaching to give it credence and viability.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Malcolm »

Minobu wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
The Lotus dates from First c. BCE ~ First c. CE.
So, it is not even the Buddha's teaching. Make it all rather moot then.
all Mahayana sutras as you know start with thus i heard.
My point was, what is the point of all this arguing about what the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra means if one does not even believe it was taught by the Buddha? If it was not taught by the Buddha, what is the point?

Our friend is trying to reconcile the findings of Buddhologists with traditional Chinese and Japanese doxography. It will never work.
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 4228
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Minobu »

Malcolm wrote:
Minobu wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
So, it is not even the Buddha's teaching. Make it all rather moot then.
all Mahayana sutras as you know start with thus i heard.
My point was, what is the point of all this arguing about what the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra means if one does not even believe it was taught by the Buddha? If it was not taught by the Buddha, what is the point?

Our friend is trying to reconcile the findings of Buddhologists with traditional Chinese and Japanese doxography. It will never work.
:popcorn:
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Malcolm »

Minobu wrote: :popcorn:
Exactly.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14468
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
The Lotus dates from First c. BCE ~ First c. CE.
So, it is not even the Buddha's teaching. Make it all rather moot then.
That's ridiculous. Thanks for the drive by.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
The Lotus dates from First c. BCE ~ First c. CE.
So, it is not even the Buddha's teaching. Make it all rather moot then.
That's ridiculous. Thanks for the drive by.
The Buddha's parinivana dates to roughly around 407 BCE if you follow the dates put forward by Cousins, etc, much earlier if you follow more traditional dates. Yet you claim that Lotus itself dates to a period 300——500 years later. So, is it 1) the Buddha's teaching or 2) merely the work of an inspired Mahāyani, or 3) do you accept the tradition that the Mahāyāna sūtras were kept hidden for hundreds of years by bodhisattvas and slowly revealed?
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14468
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's parinivana dates to roughly around 407 BCE if you follow the dates put forward by Cousins, etc, much earlier if you follow more traditional dates. Yet you claim that Lotus itself dates to a period 300——500 years later. So, is it 1) the Buddha's teaching or 2) merely the work of an inspired Mahāyani, or 3) do you accept the tradition that the Mahāyāna sūtras were kept hidden for hundreds of years by bodhisattvas and slowly revealed?
I quote the Buddha's words from the sutra without caveat. It is the Buddha's teaching. How it came to be written, some time in the 1st c. BCE ~ 1st c. CE, I have no idea.

Cut the games.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by narhwal90 »

Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
The Lotus dates from First c. BCE ~ First c. CE.
So, it is not even the Buddha's teaching. Make it all rather moot then.
On that basis we might consider mahayana sutras generally moot, surely thats not a productive argument.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's parinivana dates to roughly around 407 BCE if you follow the dates put forward by Cousins, etc, much earlier if you follow more traditional dates. Yet you claim that Lotus itself dates to a period 300——500 years later. So, is it 1) the Buddha's teaching or 2) merely the work of an inspired Mahāyani, or 3) do you accept the tradition that the Mahāyāna sūtras were kept hidden for hundreds of years by bodhisattvas and slowly revealed?
I quote the Buddha's words from the sutra without caveat. It is the Buddha's teaching. How it came to be written, some time in the 1st c. BCE ~ 1st c. CE, I have no idea.
It's good that you have no idea. You also have no idea when it was committed to writing. So why waste your time assuming that things like the five certainties are "younger" than the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra? If we follow your text based logic, also the sambhogakāya is "younger" than the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra.
Queequeg wrote: Cut the games.
Even when it seems like I am playing games, the purpose is serious.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14468
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's parinivana dates to roughly around 407 BCE if you follow the dates put forward by Cousins, etc, much earlier if you follow more traditional dates. Yet you claim that Lotus itself dates to a period 300——500 years later. So, is it 1) the Buddha's teaching or 2) merely the work of an inspired Mahāyani, or 3) do you accept the tradition that the Mahāyāna sūtras were kept hidden for hundreds of years by bodhisattvas and slowly revealed?
I quote the Buddha's words from the sutra without caveat. It is the Buddha's teaching. How it came to be written, some time in the 1st c. BCE ~ 1st c. CE, I have no idea.
It's good that you have no idea. You also have no idea when it was committed to writing. So why waste your time assuming that things like the five certainties are "younger" than the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra? If we follow your text based logic, also the sambhogakāya is "younger" than the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra.
You need to be clear here.

What do you mean by 'text based logic'? You seem to be conflating things. The text still says what it says. If the commentaries contradict that, they are not commentaries.

I do have a bias in favor of the sutra. If that is 'text based logic', then that is an accurate characterization.
Even when it seems like I am playing games, the purpose is serious.
So, you have not addressed the rest of my comment. Please.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote:
What do you mean by 'text based logic'?...

I do have a bias in favor of the sutra. If that is 'text based logic', then that is an accurate characterization.
Your hermeneutical criteria has been overdetermined by Western text critical scholarship.

Can you imagine any traditional scholar arguing about the five certainties in the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra based on some idea that it was written down between 100 BCE —— 100 CE? I can't.
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 4228
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Minobu »

I'm a little confused Loppon.

we have this sequence of debate
Malcolm wrote:
Minobu wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
So, it is not even the Buddha's teaching. Make it all rather moot then.
all Mahayana sutras as you know start with thus i heard.
My point was, what is the point of all this arguing about what the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra means if one does not even believe it was taught by the Buddha? If it was not taught by the Buddha, what is the point?

Our friend is trying to reconcile the findings of Buddhologists with traditional Chinese and Japanese doxography. It will never work.
which was due to this
Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
The Lotus dates from First c. BCE ~ First c. CE.
So, it is not even the Buddha's teaching. Make it all rather moot then.

i tried to point out that all Mahayana is written well after my Lord's parinirvana with "Thus i heard" for as you know it is a handed down verbal thing...from it's time the way it was done and we accept that.


now you go and do this..
Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's parinivana dates to roughly around 407 BCE if you follow the dates put forward by Cousins, etc, much earlier if you follow more traditional dates. Yet you claim that Lotus itself dates to a period 300——500 years later. So, is it 1) the Buddha's teaching or 2) merely the work of an inspired Mahāyani, or 3) do you accept the tradition that the Mahāyāna sūtras were kept hidden for hundreds of years by bodhisattvas and slowly revealed?
which is moot coming from you..
like why are you doing this ?
Malcolm wrote:
It's good that you have no idea. You also have no idea when it was committed to writing. So why waste your time assuming that things like the five certainties are "younger" than the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra? If we follow your text based logic, also the sambhogakāya is "younger" than the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra.


Even when it seems like I am playing games, the purpose is serious.
time periods are impossible to hammer done with this stuff..thats why it's all upaya and faith based ..why bother? especially you...you are above this sort of thing...to me anyway.

sometimes like when you said in a post to me..all mahayana is legend and myth...might have quoted you wrong...maybe it was only all Mahayana is legend...
sometimes i feel you dismiss mahayana like in this theme
2) merely the work of an inspired Mahāyani,
it makes me wonder if you are strictly a Vajrayanaist at this point in your life and just put up with the rest of it.
Also is Bon a mix of Vajrayana and tibetan buddhism..maybe that is what i am picking up on, as well..

i get that and am not knocking it in any way...but maybe if i am right ...it is time for you to say so.

Us Nichiren Followers sort of have the same thing ..except it is all like a pure Buddha epiphanic like teaching..it's like the reason for all other teachings ..in the distracted times of the latter days...to us all the rest are just hanger oners...

just saying ...calling a spade a spade so to speak.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14468
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
What do you mean by 'text based logic'?...

I do have a bias in favor of the sutra. If that is 'text based logic', then that is an accurate characterization.
Your hermeneutical criteria has been overdetermined by Western text critical scholarship.

Can you imagine any traditional scholar arguing about the five certainties in the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra based on some idea that it was written down between 100 BCE —— 100 CE? I can't.
Now you're just dancing.

Our exchange is published above. The outstanding issues are there.

It would not be outrageous for someone to conclude you don't want to deal with the sutra.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 4228
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Minobu »

Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
What do you mean by 'text based logic'?...

I do have a bias in favor of the sutra. If that is 'text based logic', then that is an accurate characterization.
Your hermeneutical criteria has been overdetermined by Western text critical scholarship.

Can you imagine any traditional scholar arguing about the five certainties in the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra based on some idea that it was written down between 100 BCE —— 100 CE? I can't.
Now you're just dancing.

Our exchange is published above. The outstanding issues are there.

It would not be outrageous for someone to conclude you don't want to deal with the sutra.
Hiding behind overdetermined western text critical scholarship is a one way ticket out of all that is Mahayana...

as jefferson airplane said at woodstock in opening to their Volunteers "It's a new dawn people" is this it Loppon? Are you at a new dawn where Mahayana has been proven just legend and you got the real thing?
illarraza
Posts: 1257
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:30 am

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by illarraza »

Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
The Buddha's parinivana dates to roughly around 407 BCE if you follow the dates put forward by Cousins, etc, much earlier if you follow more traditional dates. Yet you claim that Lotus itself dates to a period 300——500 years later. So, is it 1) the Buddha's teaching or 2) merely the work of an inspired Mahāyani, or 3) do you accept the tradition that the Mahāyāna sūtras were kept hidden for hundreds of years by bodhisattvas and slowly revealed?
I quote the Buddha's words from the sutra without caveat. It is the Buddha's teaching. How it came to be written, some time in the 1st c. BCE ~ 1st c. CE, I have no idea.
It's good that you have no idea. You also have no idea when it was committed to writing. So why waste your time assuming that things like the five certainties are "younger" than the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra? If we follow your text based logic, also the sambhogakāya is "younger" than the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra.
Queequeg wrote:
Cut the games.
Even when it seems like I am playing games, the purpose is serious.
Hello Old Pal Malcolm. Here is my take:

Stace: Hi Mark. Did you read his article on “How the Mahayana Began”? He points out that in the essay you provide the “Corruption” of the Pali texts. The same could be applied to the Mahayana. Can you tell how this is possible: Chapter 10: The Teacher of the Law – This chapter presents the five practices of the teachers of the Lotus Sutra. These practices are accepting and upholding, reading, chanting, explaining and writing the Sutra. The Sutra begins, “Thus I Have Heard”. Ananda, the Buddhas attendant recalling verbally, (orally) what the Buddha said. How and why would the Buddha then instruct the “hearers” of this sutra to READ and; WRITE it?

Mark: I just read it. I’m sure you are aware of one of the honorific titles of the Buddha, that of Omniscience. Gombrich disagrees with Rys David, whether “books” were mentioned in the canon. Let me say that it is probable that the Buddha who talked about the decline, not only of his teachings but of the capacities of individuals, would have realized that one day his words would be lost unless they were written down. Tientai and Nichiren taught that the Lotus Sutra was not ostensibly taught for the people of the Middle Day, let alone for the people of the Former Day. Why would anyone believe that such capable monks who could memorize thousands of lines of oral texts were incapable of keeping secret a teaching meant for a later time? These were highly disciplined men, unlike our present day politicians and heads of state who have successfully kept secrets [documents] for hundreds or even thousands of years. This is hardly an anomally but rather a misunderstanding of the greatness of the Buddha and his followers.

Stace: Other anomalies in the sutra are the use of the term Hinayana and Mahayana. In the Buddha’s time there was only the Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. No distinction of any Yanas. How could these terms be uttered by the Buddha or his followers when they hadn’t yet been created and would have no meaning?

Mark: Nearly the entire Buddhist Canon is devoted to correcting wrong thought. It is only natural that the words “Hinayana” and “Mahayana” were inserted when these words came into being. They don’t change one iota the words, “superficial thought and its adherents” and “superior thought and its adherents”, of the Buddha. This argument that anything was added too, is not tenable.

Stace: You wrote, “By the way, what I was referring to in the original post is the contention of some that the “Nikayas” are the actual words of the Buddha while the Lotus Sutra is not.”

All he is talking about are “corruptions” of the pali. I don’t see him addressing the validity of the Lotus Sutra as the actual words of the Buddha. This is what I thought, read “How the Mahayana Began”. He doesn’t necessariy refute your position.

Mark: Not him, others. Gombrich, in many ways supports our position. That is why I cited him, even though his understanding of the mind of the Buddha and the nature of the Sangha is incomplete.

Stace: You state that my summation is in err that SGI is a legitimate form of Buddhism in accord with teachings of Nichiren. I am arguing that “Nichiren Buddhism” and any lineage born from his teaching is valid because of the arguments put forth in the article you present so long as the purpose is Liberation.

Mark: I am very sorry if anyone misconstrues that the import of citing this article in any way supports the validity of Ikedaism and Gakkaism. Of course, this was not my intent. You know Stace, I don’t consider SGI to be Buddhism even though it has borrowed extensively from Buddhism. No Buddha, no Buddhahood is my contention.

Stace: I base it off of this excerpt:

”These processes are not random (adhicca-samuppanna) but causally determined. Any empirical phenomenon is seen as a causal sequence, and that applies to the sāsana too. ‘One thing leads to another,’ as the English idiom has it. Whether or not we can see features common to the religion of Mr Richard Causton, the late leader of the UK branch of Soka Gakkai International,(we could add here Kempon Hokke or any other Nichiren based group) and that of Nāgārjuna, or of the Buddha himself, there is a train of human events which causally connects them. Buddhism is not an inert object: it is a chain of events.” PG.3

Mark: Devedatta and Shakyamuni were causally connected. That Gombrich fails to see this [that SGI is to Buddhism as Devedatta was to Shakyamuni] relates to his inability to know the mind of the Buddha.

Stace: Anyway, I do not think the article you presented puts forth the superiority of any teaching over the other but simply points out that there are things in the canon which were added and that this to be understood in an orally preserved teaching, but we can separate the wheat for the chaff and know what the buddha said.

Mark: How much harder is it to know what the Buddha meant and to know the reality of the Buddha?

Stace: I cannot, I mean physically cannot, force my brain to take most religious statement literally and therefor will never be a true believer. I love Dharma and Liberation wherever it be found, as there are so many flowers and scents to delight our senses I believe there are many pathways to liberation. I do not doubt the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren offer such a pathway but I will never believe that it is the only door.

Mark: According to the Lotus Sutra itself and Nichiren, it is the only pathway out of the burning house. Certainly, a living High Priest or mentor in the seat of the Law is not the pathway. The only living mentor in the seat of the Law is Shakyamuni Buddha.

"Modern editors of the Pali Canon, however, have generally contented themselves with trying to establish a textus receptus or ‘received text’. Let me explain. Most of our physical evidence for the Pali Canon is astonishingly recent, far more recent than our physical evidence for the western classical and biblical texts.

While talking of this, I want to take the opportunity to correct a mistake in something I published earlier this year. In Professor K. R. Norman’s splendid revision of Geiger’s Pali Grammar, published by the Pali Text Society (Geiger, 1994), I wrote an introduction called ‘What is Pali?’ (Gombrich, 1994a). In that I wrote (p. xxv) that a Kathmandu manuscript of c.800 A.D. is ‘the oldest substantial piece of written Pali to survive’ if we except the inscriptions from Devnimori and Ratnagiri, which differ somewhat in phonetics from standard Pali. This is wrong. One can quibble about what ‘substantial’ means; but it must surely include a set of twenty gold leaves found in the Khin Ba Gôn trove near Śrī Ketra, Burma, by Duroiselle in 1926-7. The leaves are inscribed with eight excerpts from the Pali Canon. Professor Harry Falk has now dated them, on paleographic grounds, to the second half of the fifth century A.D., which makes them by far the earliest physical evidence for the Pali canonical texts (Stargardt, 1995). -- Richard F. Gombrich

Therefore, according to this reliable information, the Sanskrit text of the Lotus Sutra is older than the Pali texts that the Hinayana Buddhists arrogantly claim to be the only authoritative texts of what the Buddha actually taught.

"It is now clear that none of the existing Buddhist collections of early Indian scriptures—not the Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, nor even the Gandhari—“can be privileged as the most authentic or original words of the Buddha.” -- Linda Heuman

"Only the Lotus Sutra represents the wonderful teaching preached directly from the golden mouth of Shakyamuni Buddha, who is perfectly endowed with the three bodies." -- Nichiren Daishonin

There are various teaching methods employed by the Buddha in the Lotus Sutra: simile; metaphor; parable [of which there are seven]; skillful or expedient means; logic; historical precedent; narration [current events and prior birth stories]; questions and answers; and most importantly, a direct exposition of his Enlightenment. When studying the Lotus Sutra one can reflect, "here the Buddha is speaking of his experience in a previous existence and here the Buddha is answering the question of Sariputra", etc. Are there worlds where the Buddha actually experienced parthenogenesis as the physiological method of reproducing the species or is it a metaphor or is it something else? Is the Treasure Tower a metaphor only? Bodhisattvas 500 feet tall on other worlds? Flying cars? Some things are fruitless to question or contemplate and the Buddha was silent.

Lastly the principle of Ichinen Sanzen is unsurpassed whether theoretical, the 3000 Realms in a Momentary Existence of Life of person, society, and environment simultaneously and the reality of Actual Ichinen Sanzen [the Daimoku and the Gohonzon]. Let me expound a bit more on the Lotus Sutra and other religious faiths:

Each person, society, and environment, even the Buddha's land has a defiled and pure aspect. When the pure aspect is manifest we speak in terms of Enlightenment. When the defiled aspect manifests, we speak of delusion. Were there not the inferior teachings to contrast with the Lotus Sutra there would be no way of ascertaining the truth. Likewise, were there no deluded teachers, we could never come to know the merits and virtues of Shakyamuni Buddha and Nichiren Daishonin, teachers without peer.

Generally, those who have faith in and practice the Lotus Sutra are Bodhisattvas of the Earth. Specifically, Nichiren Daishonin is the Supreme Votary of the Lotus Sutra. Generally we are all Buddhas but specifically, from a deeper sense, Shakyamuni Buddha is the Original Eternal Buddha. From the deepest sense, we are the Three Bodied Tathagata of Original Enlightenment, Shakyamuni Buddha ourselves. Nichiren teaches that this most difficult to believe and most difficult to understand teaching should not be bandied about lightly. In our mundane thoughts and activities, it is best to think in terms of the general meaning, having gratitude for and giving praise to the Lotus Sutra [Law], Eternal Buddha Shakyamuni and Nichiren Daishonin. Similar reasonings can be given in the case of our relationship to the Law. Generally, everyone is a manifestation of the Mystic Law, even a dust mite. Specifically, Shakyamuni Buddha and Nichiren Daishonin are those who are one with the Mystic Law. There is a saying derived from the Infinite Meanings Sutra, the introduction to the Lotus Sutra: "Infinite meanings derive from the one Law." Equally, infinite phenomena derive from the one Law.

Even Nichiren Daishonin and the Buddha couldn't convert everyone. "To the best of our ability" while employing the strategy of the Lotus Sutra and the wisdom of the Buddha is the means outlined by the Buddha and Nichiren Daishonin to awaken the masses of beings. The Three Proofs, documentary, theoretical, and actual is what will capture other's attention. For example, in converting a Christian or Muslim, documentary proof is comparing and contrasting the Bible or Q'uran with the Lotus Sutra. Theoretical proof is pointing out the reasonableness and sound logic of such concepts as the Mutual Possession of the Ten Worlds and 3000 Realms in a Momentary Existence of Life [Ichinen Sanzen], and the functioning of the Law of Cause and effect. Proof of actual fact is the joy of practicing this teaching, overcoming our limitations and pointing out the hellish reality of a society based on Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and even scientific rationalism.

Mark
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
What do you mean by 'text based logic'?...

I do have a bias in favor of the sutra. If that is 'text based logic', then that is an accurate characterization.
Your hermeneutical criteria has been overdetermined by Western text critical scholarship.

Can you imagine any traditional scholar arguing about the five certainties in the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra based on some idea that it was written down between 100 BCE —— 100 CE? I can't.
Now you're just dancing.

Our exchange is published above. The outstanding issues are there.

It would not be outrageous for someone to conclude you don't want to deal with the sutra.
You reject the five certainties because according to you they are a later Mahāyāna teaching. But it is not actually the case that they are a later Mahāyāna teaching. All sūtras present the five perfections: a perfect place, perfect teacher, perfect retinue, perfect teaching, and a perfect time, including Hinayāna sūtras. The distinction between the nirmanakāya and the sambhogakāya is that the five perfections are constant in the case of the latter, but in the case of the former, the place is different, the teacher may be different, a different retinue, a different teaching, or a different time.

For the sambhogakāya, the place is always Akaniṣṭha, the teacher is always the sambhogakāya of the Buddha, the retinue is always not-retrogressing bodhisattvas as well as buddha-emanations, the teaching is always Mahāyāna, or Ekayāna, whichever term you like, and the time is always.

Further you claim:
The trikaya teaching appeared after the Lotus appeared. To the extent that later Lotus proponents labored to find the trikaya in the Lotus, its because they were resolving distinctions that came up later and were then used to analyze the sutras. We use more words to resolve the breaches that words created in the first place.
This apparently means you do not accept the teachings of the three kāyas as the Buddha's teaching. Why? It appears in many sūtras. This is why I chided you for relying on text critical scholarship when it suits you, and ignoring it when it doesn't.

The Buddha is quite clearly stating that Rajagriha is a sambhogakāya buddhafield since it will not perish when the Sahaloka perishes. He states he will always be present there. He states the Dharma he will teach there, etc. He states that its continuous presence cannot be observed by everyone. It is really quite clear.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Caoimhghín »

Queequeg wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:[...]

One might consider akaniṣṭha in light of the Buddha's Pure Land in specifically described in Chapter 16.

[...]
This analysis can certainly be applied. What is poignant is that Shakyamuni's Pure Land is the Saha World. Ordinary beings see it aflame, but is actually tranquil.
But is akaniṣṭha, the Pure Land of Mahāvairocana, not also understood in exactly the same way?

I'm not saying "every has to agree to these parallels", but I think they are there, and are more than contrivances, that is to say, I think these parallels are there 'intentionally' within the Buddhavacana, but obviously we can treat that as the speculation it is.

Furthermore I think these parallels highlight a particular "manner" in which Śākyamuni is the "eternal Buddha" or "true Buddha".

---------
---------
---------

What did Ven Nichiren call this "eternal Buddha" referred to in the OP? I have heard divergent terms: 真佛, 本佛, (真/本)性, (真/本)相, etc.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Malcolm »

Coëmgenu wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:[...]

One might consider akaniṣṭha in light of the Buddha's Pure Land in specifically described in Chapter 16.

[...]
This analysis can certainly be applied. What is poignant is that Shakyamuni's Pure Land is the Saha World. Ordinary beings see it aflame, but is actually tranquil.
But is akaniṣṭha, the Pure Land of Mahāvairocana, not also understood in exactly the same way?
.
Akaniṣṭha Gandavyuha is outside of the three realms completely. It can only be accessed by bodhisattvas of the eighth bhumi and beyond.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Malcolm »

illarraza wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
I quote the Buddha's words from the sutra without caveat. It is the Buddha's teaching. How it came to be written, some time in the 1st c. BCE ~ 1st c. CE, I have no idea.
It's good that you have no idea. You also have no idea when it was committed to writing. So why waste your time assuming that things like the five certainties are "younger" than the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra? If we follow your text based logic, also the sambhogakāya is "younger" than the Saddharmapundarika Sūtra.
Queequeg wrote:
Cut the games.
Even when it seems like I am playing games, the purpose is serious.
Hello Old Pal Malcolm. Here is my take:
Thanks for your input.
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 4228
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Minobu »

I dunno..i wish Malcolm would just say what he believes to be true. it is weird when a guy says stuff that gives the impression as he said All Mahayana is legend and then go on and talk about it like it is the words of the Buddha.
i could cut and paste all day but we know this is the case. Malcolm you always refer to stuff with exepts from sutras...And yet you believe them to be only legend and sometimes a crack in the wall appears and you say stuff like
Malcolm wrote: There are many ways to unpack a sūtra's meaning — the literal meaning of the words is generally the least useful and interesting.
this reeks of non belief that the Mahayana is strictly by the hand of Lord Buddha alone.
Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote: So, is it 1) the Buddha's teaching or 2) merely the work of an inspired Mahāyani, or 3) do you accept the tradition that the Mahāyāna sūtras were kept hidden for hundreds of years by bodhisattvas and slowly revealed?
For me Malcolm is like some Buddhist savant dictionary. Everything ever said or written is in his head it seems. From that perspective one would see that he has his view of seeing things and calling out Mahayana as legend is not the same as saying it is here due to the fact it was said and done by Buddha and witnesses "AS IS" ..put to written word centuries later...

there i said it plain as day..
Locked

Return to “Nichiren”