Son of Buddha wrote:
Also the idea that tathāgatagarbha is full-fledged buddhahood is contradicted by this passage:
- The seed existing in oneself that turns into buddhahood is called "tathāgatgarbha," the buddhahood which one will obtain.
Again one sentence with no context.
This is only in reference to inherent enlightenment manifesting in the life of the sentient being, it is in no way saying that the Buddha nature is a part that you can use to create the unconditioned unborn Enlightenment.
As I've pointed out to you before "Inherent enlightenment [bodhi]" also makes zero sense.
Sure it makes zero sense............to you.
If everyone was inherently enlightened then samsara wouldn't even be an issue and there would be no reason for the buddhadharma.
nobody said the current individual had manifested their inherent Enlightenment. Enlightenment itself even from the Pali Canon standards has always been uncreated ,Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade,Unconditioned(Udana 8,3)
This means that your Bodhi has never never been created or born and has always been Bodhi since beginningless time. This means that Enlightenment is not something you create it is only something that is revealed/manifested when all defilements are removed.
Example while the person is still a sentient being the inherent enlightenment is obscured by defilements(you being one of them) and when the person IS a Buddha, then the inherent enlightenment has been seperated from the defilements that has been obscuring it.
either way your Enlightenment has been unborn and uncreated from the beginning....that is inherent enlightenment.
So inherent enlightenment is an incorrect view.
Enlightenment is uncreated ,Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade,Unconditioned(Udana 8,3)
can you create your enlightenment? nope it is uncreated, when was your enlightenment born?? its not born Enlightenment has always been since beginningless time, when do we make our enlightenment and become buddha's? we don't Enlightenment is not made by us......................your enlightenment is like a mirror that is covered in dust all you have to do is remove the dust and the mirror that has been under it all along will be revealed.
"Enlightenment" or "awakening" [bodhi] only arises due to causes and conditions, as does buddhahood, buddhahood's cause (for example) is primarily the removal of the two obscurations and gathering of the two accumulations. There is no enlightenment to speak of without rectifying those afflictions, and one would be a fool to state otherwise.
Ahh so if people disagree with you then they are automatically fools....... and AGAIN Enlightenment does not arise due to causes and conditions, that goes against the basic definition of Bodhi itself.
“There is, O monks, an Unborn, an Unbecome, an Unmade, an Unconditioned; if, O monks, there were not here this Unborn, Unbecome, Unmade, Unconditioned, there would not here be an escape from the born, the become, the made, the conditioned. But because there is an Unborn,…therefore there is an escape from the born….” (Udana 8,3)
There are causes and conditions needed to remove the defilements off
of the unborn, unmade, unconditioned Bodhi, But Enlightenment itself is unborn,uncreated and unmade and does not need causes and conditions to CREATE IT.....like I said before, our inherent enlightenment only needs to be manifested from what obscures it.
What you are mistakenly referring to as "inherent enlightenment" is a misinterpretation of the innate purity of phenomena, i.e., their unconditioned nature. That nature is not 'enlightenment'.
Although it is quiet, it has the ability to illumine the entire dharma-realm the three thousand great thousand world system. "Fundamental enlightenment" refers to the natural, primary essence inherent within us, which neither increases nor decreases, is neither produced nor destroyed, is neither defiled nor pure. Fundamental enlightenment is also called initial enlightenment.
Venerable Master Hsuan Hua
As I have cited before Śrī Siṃha is very clear about this idea of 'primordial buddhahood' or 'inherent enlightenment' being a misunderstanding, and you should make sure you are VERY clear on this, otherwise you will compromise your chances of buddhahood altogether:
- This is acceptable since a so called “primordial buddhahood” is not asserted. Full awakening is not possible without being free of the five afflictions... It is not possible for wisdom to increase without giving up afflictions. Wisdom will not arise without purifying afflictions.
I have 5 translations of the Queen Srimala Sutra which is literally my favorite sutra and I have NEVER seen this passage ever, do you care to send a link to the chapter and translation you are using (the sutra itself is only 36 pages long so you should have no problem whatsoever sourcing this)
So no, 'inherent enlightenment' is not taught in any buddhist teachings, and you are grievously mistaken if you believe it is. Really these discrepancies are due to your unrefined knowledge of these teachings, hopefully you will take heed and learn correctly.
there are entire Buddhist schools built around the idea of inherent enlightenment, Tendai, the most popular chan teacher in the west Venerable Master Hsuan Hua,(a simple google search into his commentaries can easily prove that),Shingon, Dolpopa's Jonang, and the idea itself rubbed off on most if not all Japanese Buddhism.
so quit being sectarian guy.
Son of Buddha wrote:Also the idea that Buddha Nature is full fledged Buddhahood is the Basic Buddha Nature teachings 101
No, it actually isn't. The Mahāyāna-mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra states in no uncertain terms that buddha nature refers to a potential:
- Child of the lineage, I have said that "curd exists in milk", because curd is produced from milk, it is called "curd".
Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or manda, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the "curd-nature".
this quote doesn't say Buddha nature is different from Dharmakaya, this quote is just talking about the causes and conditions needed to manifest our inherent enlightenment
and the Nirvana Sutra says in no uncertain terms
Nirvana Sutra Moreover, emancipation is termed that which severs all conditioned phenomena [samskrta-dharmas], gives rise to all untainted [anasrava], wholseome qualities / phenomena and eliminates the various paths/ approaches, that is to say, Self, non-Self, not-Self and not non-Self. It merely severs attachment and does not sever the view of the Self/ the seeing of the Self/ the vision of the Self [atma-drsti]. The view of the Self is termed the ‘Buddha-dhatu’ [Buddha-Nature]. The Buddha-dhatu is true emancipation, and true emancipation is the Tathagata.
True emancipation is the Tathagata. The Tathagata is Nirvana. Nirvana is the Infinite. The Infinite is the Buddha-Nature. Buddha-Nature is definiteness. Definiteness is unsurpassed Enlightenment.”
So this is yet another case of me telling you the book says the "stop sign is red"
, then you proceeding to tell me that the passages that says the "stop sign is red".....REALLY does'nt mean or say that the stop sign is red....it really means something opposite of what it is actually saying
I can post quotes all day that literally say the Dharmakaaya is the Buddha Nature....and you would still deny what is literally written right in front of you.
Queen Srimala Sutra Chapter 8: The Dharmakaya V96. O’ Bhagavan, the extinction of suffering is not the destruction of the Dharma. Why so? Because the ‘extinction of suffering’ is known as the Dharmakaya of the World Honored One, which is beginningless, uncreated, unborn, undying, free from destruction, permanent unchanging, eternal, inherently pure, and separate from all the stores of defilement. The Dharmakaya is also not different from the inconceivable Buddha Natures which are more numerous than the sands of the river Ganges. The Dharmakaya of the World Honored One is called the Buddha Nature when it is obscured by the stores of defilement.”
you have a nice day.