Getting too heavy with the bible stuff.
It doesn't make sense to understand Buddhism as a permutation of Biblical religion. Seriously. You need to understand Buddhism on Buddhism terms. Otherwise, you are going to get really hurt.
Getting too heavy with the bible stuff.
Minobu, if the idea of some similarities between the Bible and Buddhism gives you the creeps, just dump the Biblical assumptions and try to understand Buddhism better. Don't beat yourself up like Job just because Brahma decided to go rub things in to hide his own incompetence.
first up...i was brought up as an atheist in a totally, besides me father, Catholic hard core family.The Cicada wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:16 pmMinobu, if the idea of some similarities between the Bible and Buddhism gives you the creeps, just dump the Biblical assumptions and try to understand Buddhism better. Don't beat yourself up like Job just because Brahma decided to go rub things in to hide his own incompetence.
The Buddha has the answers. His words are definitive.
This is completely off the top of my head. Perhaps it should be its own thread. Hopefully as we digress my contributions will improve in quality.
There are a few quotes from the Venerable Ṭhānissaro's The Mind Like Fire Unbound that I should add to this to help contextualize.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:17 pmI think that we can look at the Tathāgata's entry into liberation, the entry of the molten iron ball into the cold water, as the 'going asleep' or the occultation of the heat/fire.
I think that this puts Ven Śr Zhìyǐ's comparisons between the evil-within-Buddha and the fire-within-bamboo into better perspective, for me at least, as it largely sidesteps the issue of theodicy.
(Ven Ācārya Ṭhānissaro, The Mind Like Fire Unbound, abstract)Some writers, drawing on modern, everyday notions of fire, come to the conclusion that nibbāna implies extinction, as we feel that a fire goes out of existence when extinguished. Others, however, note that the Vedas — ancient Indian religious texts that predate Buddhism by many thousands of years — describe fire as immortal: Even when extinguished it simply goes into hiding, in a latent, diffused state, only to be reborn when a new fire is lit. These writers then assume that the Buddha accepted the Vedic theory in its entirety, and so maintain that nibbāna implies eternal existence.
The weakness of both these interpretations is that they do not take into account the way the Pali Canon describes (1) the workings of fire, (2) the limits beyond which no phenomenon may be described, and (3) the precise implications that the Buddha himself drew from his metaphor in light of (1) & (2). The purpose of this essay is to place this metaphor in its original context to show what it was and was not meant to imply.
I found a more proper version, but without a cited translator. It is from the recension of Ven Fǎxiǎn rather than the more popular recension of Ven Dharmakṣema:Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:17 pmThe Tathāgata is not extinguished in parinirvāṇa like the heat of an iron ball when cast into cold water. Moreover, it is ignorance and kleśāḥ that are like the heat of that ball. When the molten iron ball is cast into the cold water, the heat is extinguished, and the indestructible vajra nature of the Tathāgata endures much like the iron, no longer molten, resting at the bottom of the pool. -Severe paraphrase
From the footnotes to the above:The Vimalakirtinirdesa Sutra says, "All sentient beings without exception have the mark of bodhi-wisdom and do not need to attain it again." This [Buddha-nature as] the conditional cause [of Buddhahood] is the Buddha's "appearance" (so).
"Nature" is that which has it's point of reference internally. The [Buddha's] wisdom and vow is [inherently] existent and is never lost. This wisdom [of inherent Buddha-nature] as the complete cause [of Buddhahood] is the Buddha's "nature" (sho).
The inherently pure mind, [the Buddha-nature as] the direct cause [of Buddhahood] is the Buddha's "essence" (tai). These are the three tracks [of Reality].
"Power" (riki): the [Buddha's] power is so-called because he surpasses sravakas and pratyekabuddhas upon his first aspiration for enlightenment.
[The Buddha's] "activity" (sa) is the performance of the Four Universal Vows.
[The Buddha's] "cause" (in) is the grand adornment of wisdom [prajnaparamita].
[The Buddha's] "conditions" (en) are the grand adornment of virtues.
[The Buddha's] "result" (ka) is the repetitive result of the state of highest enlightenment in which each thought is integrated with the mind of great awakening.
[The Buddha's] "retribution" (ho) is the fruit of mahaparinirvana. The retributive result is complete endowment with all concentrations [samadhi], meditative states, virtues, and the severance [of all passions and delusions].
"The beginning and end both the same" (hommatsukukkyoto) [for the Buddha] means that the threefold truth of appearance, nature [and so forth] is not different that the ultimate threefold turth. Therefor they are called "the same". "The sameness of the truth of emptiness" means that inherently the suchness of sentient beings and the suchness of the Buddha is the same. The "sameness of the mundane truth [of conventional existence]" means that when sentient beings have not yet aroused aspiration for enlightenment, the Buddha has already prophesied their Buddhahood. The Buddha has already atteined enlightenment so he preaches concerning his deeds in his previous lives. Thus the mutual interexistence of the beginning and end is [the meaning of] the sameness of conventional existence. The "sameness of the middle" means that ordinary men and sages (Buddhas) are all [partaking in the same] aspects of reality.
Buddhanature as the Direct Cause of Buddhahood refers to the way things really are - the "True Aspect". This corresponds to the Dharmakaya.The three aspects of reality, which are called "tracks" because they are the order, rule law, or model of things as they truly are. The three are parallel to the three aspects of Buddha-nature. They are:
"The true nature of reality." The integrated, non-illusory, non-differentiated aspect of reality. This corresponds to the objective world and to the Buddha-nature as the direct cause of Buddhahood. Buddhahood is inherent in all sentient beings since they all participate in the true nature of reality as simultaneously empty of substantial Being yet conventionally existent.
"The illumination of wisdom." The function of wisdom in destroying dlusions and manifesting the true nature of reality. It corresponds to the aspect of Buddha-nature as the "complete cause" of Buddhahood, since the wisdom to realize Buddhahood is inherent in all sentient beings.
"The perfections of one's disposition." The practice undertaken ans which brings to perfection the inherent Buddha's wisdom. t corresponds to the aspect of Buddha-nature as practice, the conditional causes which bring to perfection the inherent Buddha-wisdom.
is this the sameCoëmgenu wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:35 pm , it is similar to when an iron ball is cast into water - although the heat is extinguished, the substance / nature of the iron remains. In that way, when the Tathagata has completely extinguished the fire of the mental afflictions that have been accumulated over countless aeons, the nature of the diamond Tathagata permanently endures - not transforming and not diminishing.[/i]
The Vedic gods;
My take (and this will sound like what you might have learned from the little oriental who taught you to chant): In a sense, the teaching of ichinen sanzen is explaining that you abide in a house of mirrors in which everything you see is you (the Mind), including the medium in which you see your reflection (the environment). The hell you see is a reflection of your life condition of suffering. The preta are a reflection of the life condition of craving... The Buddha and his pure land is likewise a reflection of your Buddhanature.[Thus] a single thought includes the ten dharma realms. A single dharma realm includes the [other] ten dharma realms, so there are one hundred dharma realms. One realm includes thirty types of worlds [that is, each of the ten dharma realms are included in each of the three types of worlds: the world of sentient beings, the world of the five skandhas, and various lands], multiplied by one hundred dharma realms. This results in the inclusion of three thousand types of worlds. These three thousand [worlds] exist in a single momentary thought.
If there is no thought, that is the end of the matter. If there is even an ephemeral thought, this includes three thousand [realms]. But we cannot say that the single thought has prior existence, and that all phenomena (sarva-dharma) exist later, nor can we say that all phenomena have prior existence, and that the single thought exists later. For example, it is like a thing that changes through eight aspects [of arising, abiding, changing, and perishing]; it is not that things exist prior to these aspects and are caused to change through them, nor do the aspects exist prior to things and are caused to change through them [but things and their passing through arising, abiding, and so forth occur together]. There can be no priority nor posteriority [since it occurs simultaneously]. It is just that things are said to change by passing through these aspects, and these aspects are said to occur to things.
Thoughts are also like this. If all phenomena arise from a single thought, this is a horizontal [relationship]; if a thought in one moment encompasses all phenomena, this is a vertical [relationship]. But these are neither [merely] vertical nor [merely] horizontal. It is just that thought is all phenomena, and all phenomena is thought. Therefore [the relationship of thought and phenomena, the mind and objects] is neither [merely] vertical nor horizontal; they are neither the same nor different. This is mysterious and sublime, profound in the extreme, cannot be grasped conceptually, and cannot be verbalized. This is what is called [contemplating] “objects as inconceivable.” This is the meaning here.
Question: The arising of thoughts is necessarily dependent on certain [objective] conditions. If so, are the three thousand dharmas included in the thoughts, included in the conditions [that is, the objects], included in both [thoughts and their objects], or included separate from [thoughts and their objects]? If they are included in the thoughts [themselves], then thoughts arise [by themselves] and do not need [objective] conditions[, which is obviously impossible]. If they are included in the [objective] conditions, then, being included in the objects themselves, there is no involvement with mental activity[, which is also impossible]. If they are included together, that means that when they are not yet together then neither side has [the three thousand dharmas], but then how can [thoughts and their objects] have [the three thousand dharmas] when they are together? If they are included separate from [thoughts and their objects,] then [the three thousand dharmas] are already separate from thoughts and their objects; but then how can they suddenly be included in thoughts [as in the teaching of the three thousand realms in a single thought]? None of the four options are obtainable. What does it mean, then, to say that the three thousand dharmas are included [in one momentary thought]?
Answer: Scholars of the Treatise on the Ten Stages (Ti-lun) say that all understanding and ignorance, truth and delusion are dependent on the support of the nature of dharmas (dharmatā). The nature of dharmas supports truth and delusion, and truth and delusion depend on the nature of dharmas. The Summary of the Great Vehicle (She-lun) says that the nature of dharmas is not defiled by delusion, nor purified by truth. Therefore the nature of dharmas neither supports [delusion] nor is dependent [on the truth]. The ālaya-consciousness is that which supports and that on which things are dependent, and which gathers and supports all the seeds of undying ignorance. If we follow the scholars of the Ti-lun, we would say that all dharmas are included in the mind; if we follow the scholars of the She-lun, we would say that all dharmas are included in [objective] conditions.
These two kinds of scholars each represent one extreme. If [following the Ti-lun scholars] we say that the nature of dharmas gives birth to all dharmas, then this “nature of dharmas” [is something that] is neither mind nor [objective] conditions[, but this is impossible because there is nothing outside of thoughts and their objects]. If we say that all dharmas arise from the mind because [the nature of dharmas] is not thoughts, then it follows also that all dharmas arise from [objective] conditions because [the nature of dharmas] is not [objective] conditions[, but this doesn’t make any sense]. How, then, can you arbitrarily say that the nature of dharmas is the support of truth and delusion? If [following the She-lun scholars] we say that the nature of dharmas is not the support [of thoughts and their objects], but that the ālaya-consciousness is, then this implies that there is an ālaya-consciousness that supports [thoughts and their objects] but is outside of and separate from the nature of dharmas, that is, has no relation with the nature of dharmas. [But this is impossible.] If it is said that the nature of dharmas is not separate from the ālaya-consciousness, then what is supported by the ālaya-consciousness is also supported by the nature of dharmas. How, then, can you arbitrarily say that the ālaya-consciousness is the support [of mind and its objects]? This is contrary to what is in the sūtras. A sūtra says, “Neither internal, nor external, nor somewhere in between, nor always existing on its own.” It is also [different from the teaching of] Nāgārjuna. Nāgārjuna says, “Dharmas do not arise from themselves, and they do not arise from another, nor together, nor without causes.”
Let us examine the issue by using an analogy. Do you have a dream because of mental functions, or have a dream by sleeping, or have a dream by the coming together of sleep and mental functions, or have a dream by being separate from mental functions and sleeping? [None of these options are acceptable.] If you say that you ha a dream because of mental functions, then you could have a dream without sleeping[, but in fact you cannot]. If you say that you have a dream by sleeping, then a dead person is “sleeping” and should have a dream[, but he does not]. If you say that you have a dream by the coming together of sleep and mental functions, then why is it that some people do not dream even when they are sleeping? Also, if having a dream is part of both sleep and mental functions, and you have a dream when the two factors come together, then in fact each factor does not include dreaming, and you cannot [dream] when they come together. If you say that you have a dream separate from mental functions and separate from sleep, then since empty space is separate from these two factors [of mental functions and sleep], it should always involve dreaming. By examining dreams with the tetralemma we see that none [of the options] are obtainable. How, then, do we see all sorts of things in a dream when we sleep? Here “mental functions” are analogous to the nature of dharmas and “sleep” is analogous to the ālaya-consciousness. How can you lean to one side and say that either “the nature of dharmas” or “the ālaya-consciousness” gives rise to all dharmas? You should know that the mental functions are unobtainable through the four options [of the tetralemma]; by examining the three thousand dharmas [with the tetralemma we see that they] also are unobtainable. We thus see that horizontally, through the tetralemma, the arising of the three thousand dharmas is unobtainable.
Then [to examine the matter in a vertical fashion], do the three thousand dharmas arise from the extinction of one momentary thought? The extinction of a thought cannot give rise to one dharma, so how can it give rise to three thousand dharmas? Do the three thousand dharmas arise from both the extinction and non-extinction of a thought? But the nature of extinction and non-extinction are different, like water and fire; the two cannot stand together. Then how can this give rise to three thousand dharmas? Do the three thousand dharmas arise from neither the extinction nor the nonextinction of a thought? But [the option of] “neither extinction nor nonextinction” does not provide the power nor the place 非能非所 [to give rise to even one dharma], so how can there be the power or place to give rise to three thousand dharmas?
Thus we see that the three thousand dharmas are unobtainable if we seek them both in a horizontal and vertical fashion. The three thousand dharmas are also unobtainable if we seek them in a neither horizontal nor vertical fashion. This is beyond words; discursive thought is inadequate. Therefore they are called “inconceivable objects.”
The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, “the arising of arising is unexplainable; the non-arising of arising is unexplainable; the arising of non-arising is unexplainable; the non-arising of non-arising is unexplainable.” This is the meaning [of what I am trying to say] here. You should know from the perspective of the supreme [truth], that even a single dharma cannot be obtained, how much less so three thousand dharmas. From the perspective of the mundane truth, one thought contains immeasurable dharmas, not to mention three thousand dharmas. As the Buddha said to the nun when she asked, “Is ignorance internal?” [he answered,] “No.” “Is it external?” “No.” “Is it both internal and external?” “No.” “Is it neither internal nor external?” “No?” Then the Buddha said, “This is the way it is…” Nāgārjuna said, “[dharmas] arise not from themselves, nor from others, nor together, nor without cause.” The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, “The arising of arising is unexplainable, and so forth, to the non-arising of non-arising is unexplainable. [Arising] due to causes and conditions is also unexplainable—this refers to the causes and conditions of the four siddhānta. Although the four options of the tetralemma are hidden [from comprehension] and quiescent, [the Buddha,] with compassion and sympathy, teaches about that which has no name or form by using conventional words and forms.
If you use the worldly [method] to teach the inclusion of all dharmas in a thought, those who hear will rejoice. For example, to say that “there are no separate dharmas in the triple world which are apart from those created by the mind” is this kind of text. Or, if you teach that all dharmas arise from [objective] conditions, those who hear will rejoice. For example, sayings such as “the five [sensual] desires lead people to fall into evil destinies” or “a good friend is a great cause and condition; that is, such a person can transform and guide you to attain the insight of a Buddha” are this kind of text. Or, if you say that all dharmas arise together along with their causes [that is, thoughts] and [objective] conditions, those who hear will rejoice. For example, to say “If mercury is blended with true gold, you are able to mold images of various forms” is such a text. Or, if you say that all dharmas arise separate from [objective] conditions, those who hear will rejoice. For example, to say that “the arising of twelvefold causes and conditions is not created by the Buddha, nor created by gods, people, or asura, but through its own nature” is such a text. Such are the four options of the tetralemma for the “worldly siddhānta” in teaching that the three thousand dharmas arise in the mind.
What about the “individual method”? Sayings [on the role of the mind] such as “The Buddha Dharma is like the sea; only those who have faith are able to enter,” “faith is the source of the way and the mother of virtue; all good dharmas arise from it,” and “you should arouse only the thoughts of (anuttarasamyak) saṃbodhi, and then you will be endowed with [the upholding of] all the precepts of prohibition of the home-departed-one,” are texts that arouse faith in those [individuals] who hear them. Or, there is the teaching that all dharmas arise through conditional objects. The saying that “if you do not meet a Buddha, then you will fall into a hell of suffering for immeasurable eons; by seeing a Buddha you can attain a rootless faith, like an eraṇḍa plant giving rise to sandalwood,” this gives birth to faith for those [individuals] who hear it. Or, there is the teaching that all dharmas arise through the merging [of thoughts and their conditions]. The sayings that “when the waters of the mind are clear and pure, the form of the jewel manifests itself ” and “with the fundamental power of compassionate goodness, you can see things as they are,” are texts that arouse faith in those who hear them. Or, there is the teaching that all dharmas arise separate from [thoughts and their conditional objects]. The saying that “it is not through internal contemplation that you attain this wisdom, and so forth through [the idea that] it is not through either internal or external contemplation that you attain this wisdom; if you have any attachments, then you cannot attain even the small faith of Śrenika, much less abandon mistaken [views] and realize the right,” is a text that arouses faith in those who hear it. Such are the four options of the tetralemma for the “individual siddhānta” in teaching that the three thousand dharmas arise in the mind.
What about the “therapeutic method”? [First, there is] the teaching that all evil is healed by the mind. The saying that “the attainment of single mindedness extinguishes a myriad of mistaken [views]” is such a text. Or, there is the teaching that all evil is healed by objective conditions. The saying “By hearing of the great, supreme light of wisdom, the mind becomes concentrated and is immobile like the earth,” is such a text. Or, there is the teaching that all evil is healed by a combination of causes [thoughts] and [objective] conditions. The saying “part arises from your own conceptual thinking, and part comes from your teacher,” is such a text. Or, there is the teaching that all evil is healed separate from [thoughts and their objects]. [The saying] “I did not [actually] attain all dharmas when I sat on the seat of enlightenment, but I lured and saved all [as if] deceiving a small child with an empty fist” is such a text. Such are [the four options of the tetralemma for] the “therapeutic siddhānta” for the teaching that all evil is destroyed by the mind.
What about the “supreme method”? [First, the teaching that] you attain insight into the principle [of the truth] with the mind is like the saying that “When the mind is opened and you understand, then you attain the way immediately.” Or, the teaching that you attain insight into the truth through conditional objects is like the saying “Anyone who hears this will attain ultimate and perfect wisdom.” Or, the teaching that you attain the path by a merging of causes [thoughts] and [objective] conditionals is like [the analogy of] the nimble horse that advances on the right road just by catching a glimpse of the whip. Or, the teaching that you are able to attain insight into the truth separate from [thoughts and their objects] is like the saying “Not attaining is attaining, and having attained is not attaining.” Such are the four options of the “supreme (siddhānta)” for insight into truth [as emptiness]. How much more so for [the idea of] three thousand dharmas that arise in a [single] thought?
The gist of the Buddha’s [teaching] is to exhaust and purify, and does not involve [merely the four options of] cause [thought], conditional objects, both, or neither; the worldly truth is [taught on the basis of] the supreme truth.
Again, any and all of the four options can [and should] be taught [in terms of the mundane truth]: you could assert cause [thought], conditional objects, both, or neither. If you attempt to explain [the whiteness of] milk to a blind person, saying it is like [the whiteness of] a shell, or like rice powder, or like snow, or like a [white] crane, the blind person will hear this explanation and reach [a certain] understanding of milk. [This illustrates that] the worldly truth is indivisible from the supreme truth [and vice versa].
Thus it should be known that “expounding throughout the day is [the same as] not expounding throughout the day, and not expounding throughout the day is [the same as] expounding throughout the day.” At all times both extremes are covered, and at all times both extremes are illumined, establishing while deconstructing, and deconstructing while establishing. [The teachings of] the sūtras and treatises are all like this.
Vasubandhu and Nāgārjuna internally had insight and were enlightened, and externally each responded appropriately to the needs of their times on the basis of tentative means. However, some [Buddhist] teachers have a one-sided understanding, and some scholars are carelessly attached [to their own limited interpretation], so that they [argue and fight uselessly,] like shooting arrows at a rock. They each maintain one extreme, and thus pervert the noble path. If you obtain this meaning, then you comprehend both the impossibility of verbal expression and the necessity of verbal expression.
If you were to respond appropriately [in accordance with tentative expressions], you should say that when ignorance shapes the dharmas according to Dharma-nature (dharmatā), then all dharmas arise as all things that happen in a dream are a result of the mind in a state of sleep. The merging of the mind with external conditions results in the three types of worlds [of the five skandhas, sentient beings, and various lands], and thus the three thousand [internal and external] features [of the three thousand realms] arise from the mind. A single internal feature is small or few, but it is not nothing; ignorance is multitudinous, but has no [substantial] Being. Why? If we focus on one thing as [an example of] many, the many are not many; if we focus on many as one, this one is not a few. Therefore these thoughts are called inconceivable objects.
If it is understood that one thought is all thoughts, all thoughts are one thought, and these are neither one nor all, one skandha is all skandhas, all skandhas are one skandha, and these are neither one nor all; one sense entrance (āyatana) is all senses entrances, all sense entrances are one sense entrance, and these are neither one nor all; one sense realm (dhātu) is all sense realms, all sense realms is one sense realm, and these are neither one nor all; one sentient being is all sentient beings, all sentient beings are one sentient being, and these are neither one nor all; one land is all lands, all lands are one land, and these are neither one nor all; one mark is all marks, all marks are one mark, and these are neither one nor all; [and so forth for the other categories of the ten suchlike characteristics] up to and including one ultimate is all ultimates, all ultimates are one ultimate, and these are neither one nor all. Everything and anything that we experience; all are inconceivable objects.
When you see the Buddha's appearance (here, as the Lotus Sutra), you see all of his teachings, all of his powers, all of his essence, his real aspect - all of which are the culmination of, conventionally speaking, eons of practice. What you see is actually a reflection of your own Buddhanature. If you did not have that Buddhanature, you could not see the Buddha.To sum up, in this sutra I have clearly revealed and taught all the teachings of the Tathāgata, all the transcendent powers of the Tathāgata, all the treasure houses of the hidden essence of the Tathāgata, and all the profound aspects of the Tathāgata.
it's like this...Queequeg wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 6:35 pm
Conventionally, you will always be looking on the Buddha as other; when you awaken, however, and understand that Buddha is actually you, that the Buddha's mandala is your own mind, understanding that "you" are not the "you" you think you are, you awaken that "you" are the three thousand, the three thousand is "you", without hierarchy. That while the Buddha displays birth, awakening, teaching and parinirvana in India, you, in the place you find yourself, display the struggle for enlightenment that the Buddha has described as his own past. The Buddha is you telling this story in some future time and place. Because you are confused by the intrinsic nature of your own mind, thinking that what appears is something outside of you, all caught up in the particulars of your time and place, you don't see reality. To wake you from your stupor the Buddha addresses you, "Ajita, you are the eyes of the world!"
because no matter what time line you want to be in...Lord Sakyamuni appeared as a Nirmanakaya for me to be able to learn from...
Minobu wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:59 pmbecause no matter what time line you want to be in...Lord Sakyamuni appeared as a Nirmanakaya for me to be able to learn from...
all my time lines...from my Sambhogakaya Body to my Nirmanakaya body ..Lord Sakyamuni will always be the one who left me, and led me to the Lotus sutra.
That's what I get out of it.