The Life Span of the Tathagata: Before and after Gaya.

[Minobu]

Ultimately there are no beings, no suffering, no end to suffering, etc. Relatively, there are. This is bog-standard Mahayana orthodoxy.

The Prajnaparamita in 10,000 Lines (Ch. 2.7) defines compassion thus:

If you ask what is ‘great compassion,’ it is unstinting loving kindness toward all sentient beings, when there are actually no sentient beings. That is called great compassion.

So recognizing that ultimately there are no sentient beings doesn't mean nihilism; that would be a wrong view.

thanks for the link.

so you are saying this is not nihilism and is the view .

Though it seems like people are suffering and being killed, in reality no one suffers or is killed.

and this is about compassion?
to me it is gross indifference to sentients sufferings.

so hey why not smash your head with a hammer and see if you suffer?
Or just shoot yourself in the head and see if you die.

of course the same guy preaching this stuff is waiting for his reward of enlightenment on his death bed and unto the Pure Land for eternity so i dunno...

[Minobu]

Ultimately there are no beings, no suffering, no end to suffering, etc. Relatively, there are. This is bog-standard Mahayana orthodoxy.

The Prajnaparamita in 10,000 Lines (Ch. 2.7) defines compassion thus:

If you ask what is ‘great compassion,’ it is unstinting loving kindness toward all sentient beings, when there are actually no sentient beings. That is called great compassion.

So recognizing that ultimately there are no sentient beings doesn't mean nihilism; that would be a wrong view.

one question

how does the 4 noble truths fit into this narrative

so there is no suffering so these are not really 4 truths according to you guys

[Giovanni]

Ultimately there are no beings, no suffering, no end to suffering, etc. Relatively, there are. This is bog-standard Mahayana orthodoxy.

The Prajnaparamita in 10,000 Lines (Ch. 2.7) defines compassion thus:

If you ask what is ‘great compassion,’ it is unstinting loving kindness toward all sentient beings, when there are actually no sentient beings. That is called great compassion.

So recognizing that ultimately there are no sentient beings doesn't mean nihilism; that would be a wrong view.

one question

how does the 4 noble truths fit into this narrative

so there is no suffering so these are not really 4 truths according to you guys

Conventional samsaric life is dukkha. Dharma leads away from dukkha by showing that it arises by anicca and anatta.
There is no permanent entity that suffers joy or pain. That is basic Dharma.

[Malcolm]

Guess it's hard to admit when you are wrong eh malcolm..

You are still taking my analogy out of context. To restate it for you, in an illusion, it may appear that people are suffering and being killed, but no one is actually suffering and being killed, likewise, even though it appears that the Buddha takes birth in Lumbini, leaves home, attains awakening, and so on, in reality it is an illusion, the Buddha is not actually takingin birth, leaving home, attaining awakening and so on. Otherwise, the consequence is that the Buddha would have attained liberation twice, once, eons ago, and then again in Bodhgaya.

[Malcolm]

so there is no suffering so these are not really 4 truths according to you guys

After the Buddha attained awakening eons ago, for him there was no further suffering, even if he appeared to undergo the bodhisattva path as portrayed in the Jatakas, spent six years of austerity after leaving home, and so on, in reality, this was a show, an illusion, and display, to encourage sentient beings to follow the Dharma.

[LastLegend]

Ultimately there are no beings, no suffering, no end to suffering, etc. Relatively, there are. This is bog-standard Mahayana orthodoxy.

The Prajnaparamita in 10,000 Lines (Ch. 2.7) defines compassion thus:

If you ask what is ‘great compassion,’ it is unstinting loving kindness toward all sentient beings, when there are actually no sentient beings. That is called great compassion.

So recognizing that ultimately there are no sentient beings doesn't mean nihilism; that would be a wrong view.

There is no Buddha either...when all the facilities even the slightest recognition of self (one self) has completely vanished.

[clyde]

so there is no suffering so these are not really 4 truths according to you guys

After the Buddha attained awakening eons ago, for him there was no further suffering, even if he appeared to undergo the bodhisattva path as portrayed in the Jatakas, spent six years of austerity after leaving home, and so on, in reality, this was a show, an illusion, and display, to encourage sentient beings to follow the Dharma.

Do you realize how little sense that makes?

If the Buddha was awakened eons ago and merely pretended to suffer, and lied when he told of his “Noble Search” (See: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html), and then pretended to awaken under the Bodhi Tree; how is that supposed to encourage us to follow the Dharma?

For me, that the Buddha was an ordinary human being, subject to the sufferings of common people, and that he sought and found liberation - that is encouraging!

[Malcolm]

Do you realize how little sense that makes?

For you it does not make sense. For millions of Buddhists over the past two millennia, it made perfect sense, and still does.

If the Buddha was awakened eons ago and merely pretended to suffer, and lied when he told of his “Noble Search” (See: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html), and then pretended to awaken under the Bodhi Tree; how is that supposed to encourage us to follow the Dharma?

As the Lotus Sūtra states:

“Noble ones,” he continued, “in the same way, although I attained the highest, complete enlightenment of perfect buddhahood countless, innumerable hundreds of thousands of quintillions of eons ago, I sometimes teach as a skillful method such as this in order to guide beings. In this matter, I am not in any way a liar.”

https://read.84000.co/translation/toh113.html

The Buddha manifested the twelve deeds in order to encourage the śrāvakas, he manifested the bodhisattva path over three incalculable eons to inspire courageous bodhisattvas, and so on.

For me, that the Buddha was an ordinary human being, subject to the sufferings of common people, and that he sought and found liberation - that is encouraging!

Perhaps, but this is not the normative Mahāyāna narrative. Even if you follow the śrāvaka narrative, the Bodhisattva was no ordinary human being.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Do you realize how little sense that makes?

It's one of the possible perspectives on Sakyamuni's life that has bee put forward by some. It's not accepted by many traditions. Feel free to reject or ignore it.

[Giovanni]

“Pretend” and “lied” are not appropriate.

[Malcolm]

Do you realize how little sense that makes?

It's one of the possible perspectives on Sakyamuni's life that has bee put forward by some. It's not accepted by many traditions. Feel free to reject or ignore it.

Well, it was put forward by the Buddha in the Lotus Sutra, which was cited by Maitreya specifically in the Mahāyānottaratantra, etc.

[Budai]

It’s an important perspective and a true one. It’s good to read the Lotus Sutra and understand these things so one doesn’t get caught up in the wording, misunderstanding the meaning. Because the meaning is true and deep, and actually very profound.

Ultimately there are no beings, no suffering, no end to suffering, etc. Relatively, there are. This is bog-standard Mahayana orthodoxy.

The Prajnaparamita in 10,000 Lines (Ch. 2.7) defines compassion thus:

If you ask what is ‘great compassion,’ it is unstinting loving kindness toward all sentient beings, when there are actually no sentient beings. That is called great compassion.

So recognizing that ultimately there are no sentient beings doesn't mean nihilism; that would be a wrong view.

This is a wonderful way to put it. My question is, (although I have read the Diamond Sutra), is how there are ultimately no sentient beings. And how are there suffering and sentient beings relatively? Also, following this philosophy does one say there is no Love, no Compassion, and no Buddhas either? These things are not relative, they must be there on an Ultimate Level. I can understand how this philosophy can bring us to understand that there is no self and no temporary practitioner, these are transitory things, but what about the Eternal Lord Shakyamuni Buddha? Does it say He does not exist as well? He must exist Ultimately. I understand that He came to a Provisional Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, yes, but He still had a Buddha-Mind and Buddha Nature. I am not speaking like some kind of “eternalist” as the Theravadins put it, but is Buddha-Nature Eternal? Doesn’t it have infinite Sources in the Mystic Law, which is an Ultimate Truth?

There is the idea that there is no Highest Unsurpassed Enlightenment, therefore it can be said that there is. But how is this so, and does the idea that there is no such thing: what else does it extend to? How and why? And is it an Ultimate Truth on all levels, or are there other facets of the Ultimate Truth?

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Do you realize how little sense that makes?

It's one of the possible perspectives on Sakyamuni's life that has bee put forward by some. It's not accepted by many traditions. Feel free to reject or ignore it.

Well, it was put forward by the Buddha in the Lotus Sutra, which was cited by Maitreya specifically in the Mahāyānottaratantra, etc.

Yep. But I was responding to clyde. He quoted accesstoinsight.org, so I assume this isn’t his cup of tea.

In general this is the Nicherin forum. So Nicherin perspective is the assumed valid perspective. I was just letting clyde walk away from a Gordian Knot.

[LastLegend]

Ultimately there are no beings, no suffering, no end to suffering, etc. Relatively, there are. This is bog-standard Mahayana orthodoxy.

The Prajnaparamita in 10,000 Lines (Ch. 2.7) defines compassion thus:

If you ask what is ‘great compassion,’ it is unstinting loving kindness toward all sentient beings, when there are actually no sentient beings. That is called great compassion.

So recognizing that ultimately there are no sentient beings doesn't mean nihilism; that would be a wrong view.

This is a wonderful way to put it. My question is, (although I have read the Diamond Sutra), is how there are ultimately no sentient beings. And how are there suffering and sentient beings relatively? Also, following this philosophy does one say there is no Love, no Compassion, and no Buddhas either? These things are not relative, they must be there on an Ultimate Level. I can understand how this philosophy can bring us to understand that there is no self and no temporary practitioner, these are transitory things, but what about the Eternal Lord Shakyamuni Buddha? Does it say He does not exist as well? He must exist Ultimately. I understand that He came to a Provisional Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, yes, but He still had a Buddha-Mind and Buddha Nature. I am not speaking like some kind of “eternalist” as the Theravadins put it, but is Buddha-Nature Eternal? Doesn’t it have infinite Sources in the Mystic Law, which is an Ultimate Truth?

There is the idea that there is no Highest Unsurpassed Enlightenment, therefore it can be said that there is. But how is this so, and does the idea that there is no such thing: what else does it extend to? How and why? And is it an Ultimate Truth on all levels, or are there other facets of the Ultimate Truth?

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.

When all mind phenomena and its functions vanished, the Buddha nature is said tranquil extinction (as you said)...there is not even self to know itself...where is Buddha and sentient beings known? What or who would know?

[LastLegend]

In Mahayana the total of no self is thorough understood through ultimate awakened nature...not awakening as in practice...

[Budai]

Ultimately there are no beings, no suffering, no end to suffering, etc. Relatively, there are. This is bog-standard Mahayana orthodoxy.

The Prajnaparamita in 10,000 Lines (Ch. 2.7) defines compassion thus:



So recognizing that ultimately there are no sentient beings doesn't mean nihilism; that would be a wrong view.

This is a wonderful way to put it. My question is, (although I have read the Diamond Sutra), is how there are ultimately no sentient beings. And how are there suffering and sentient beings relatively? Also, following this philosophy does one say there is no Love, no Compassion, and no Buddhas either? These things are not relative, they must be there on an Ultimate Level. I can understand how this philosophy can bring us to understand that there is no self and no temporary practitioner, these are transitory things, but what about the Eternal Lord Shakyamuni Buddha? Does it say He does not exist as well? He must exist Ultimately. I understand that He came to a Provisional Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, yes, but He still had a Buddha-Mind and Buddha Nature. I am not speaking like some kind of “eternalist” as the Theravadins put it, but is Buddha-Nature Eternal? Doesn’t it have infinite Sources in the Mystic Law, which is an Ultimate Truth?

There is the idea that there is no Highest Unsurpassed Enlightenment, therefore it can be said that there is. But how is this so, and does the idea that there is no such thing: what else does it extend to? How and why? And is it an Ultimate Truth on all levels, or are there other facets of the Ultimate Truth?

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.

When all mind phenomena and its functions vanished, the Buddha nature is said tranquil extinction (as you said)...there is not even self to know itself...where is Buddha and sentient beings known? What or who would know?

So tranquil extinction would mean Buddhahood: a full Mahamaitri, a full Compassion to all beings, a Mahakaruna that embraces all Species, and a full Buddha-Nature, no independently or dependently existing self being present, as there was never one, in any way. For many there is the illusion of one however, before Enlightenment, but at the same time this must not be mistaken to be a nihilist perspective. So we have to have respect for Buddha-Nature and the Clear Light of Compassion. These are the real things, it seems to me, while everything that is temporary is called an illusion. Time is real, and we can hold it in our hand, but ultimately it will destroy these worlds we inhabit, and present in the river of Nirvana, it is not a factor that we will be subject to there, however. But when one says that there is no Supreme Perfect Enlightenment, is there just not one from a material perspective? From the level of tranquil extinction, how is Enlightenment seen and felt, this Sunyata and Anatta, Maitri and Buddhahood, it must be said to exist and be real, while the transitory things are temporary and not real. Is this a correct view?

[Queequeg]

Fully agree with Malcolm on this point. The LS is very clear about this.

I'll go a step a step further and maybe upset those who insist Shakyamuni was an ordinary being who awoke and that suffering is really real... It's all a play. Your life with all the suffering and joys and everything else is also a play. If you're not a Buddha then that just means this is the part of the play where Shakyamuni was struggling in a past life.

[Budai]

I think to say when the Gautama Siddhartha, before He left His father’s kingdom, put His hands under a wheel of a cart to help a peasant remove it from a pothole, and when that cart crushed His fingers (I saw this on a TV show about His Life), that was not a “play”, He felt real pain then, and it was a mirror of what Samsara does and the struggles of our pain in it. It is insincere to call the World-Honored One’s troubled a play. For example, in the Lotus Sutra the Bodhisattvas ask the World-Honored One if His troubles have been few, whether the beings in delusion are receptive to His Teachings, and how His Life is going. These are not questions regarding a “play” but a real Buddha Life. The Buddha’s Life is real, and although it is coming from a place higher than the Saha world, and isn’t part of the Saha world, we must still respect that He is also a person, that is why even she rejected the idea of being called a God, because that is how He wanted to be seen, He wanted people to see Him as a real person. And it does not seem the Scriptures refer to His life as a “play”, but perhaps removed from Samsara, as He provides the Dharma for those caught in the Saha world, while Himself outside of it, to help them in His Compassion.

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Oddly, this kind of idea I’m okay with. Of course I attribute positive qualities to an Ultimate Reality that would spontaneously produce such a show. So it’s not much of a stretch.

[Giovanni]

Big clue in the name of Shakyamunis mother.