I have read somewhere that this quote comes from the Nirvana Sutra:
Eight years after my parinirvana, a remarkable being with the name Padmasambhava will appear in the center of a lotus and reveal the highest teaching concerning the ultimate state of the true nature, bringing great benefit to all sentient beings.
However, I can't find it in there. Which version of the Nirvana Sutra contains this?
I have read somewhere that this quote comes from the Nirvana Sutra:
Eight years after my parinirvana, a remarkable being with the name Padmasambhava will appear in the center of a lotus and reveal the highest teaching concerning the ultimate state of the true nature, bringing great benefit to all sentient beings.
However, I can't find it in there. Which version of the Nirvana Sutra contains this?
It does not appear to be extant in the Nirvana Sutra versions that we have.
The actual citation is:
Twelve years
after my nirvana,
a person better than all
will arise on Dhanakośa Island.
I’ve seen this quoted so many times so I looked into it, and haven’t discovered a specific source in the Mahaparinirvana sutra yet, however apparently there’s multiple sutra and Tantra sources of prophecy. Here is an excerpt from Tsele Natsok Rangdröl per Erik Pema Kunsang
This is not just an exaggerated praise tenaciously offered by old ignorant followers of the Nyingma School; Padmakara was foretold by Buddha Shakyamuni himself in many sutras and tantras. If it was the case that those predictions are found only in the Nyingma tantras, it would be difficult for other people to have full trust in them, so here is a quotation from the Immaculate Goddess Sutra:
The activity of all the victorious ones of the ten directions
Will gather into a single form,
A buddha son, who will attain marvelous accomplishment,
A master who will embody buddha activity,
Will appear to the northwest of Uddiyana.
Padmasambhava is also prophesied in the Sutra of Inconceivable Secrets:
A manifestation of the buddhas of the three times,
With marvelous deeds in this Good Aeon,
Will appear as a vidyadhara
In the center of a wondrous lotus flower.
The Tantra of the Ocean of Ferocious Activity says:
A holder of the secrets of all the buddhas,
The king of the deeds of indestructible wrath,
A miraculous form without father or mother,
Will appear as a vidyadhara In Lake Kosha of Uddiyana.
There exists a vast number of similar quotations, but since these will suffice for gaining understanding, I shall refrain from further elaborations. The heart of the matter is that these quotations establish that he was miraculously born from a lotus flower.
For people who could not be converted by someone miraculously born, Padmasambhava showed himself as taking birth through a womb. In that version he was born as the son of King Mahusita of Uddiyana and given the name Danarakshita. When reaching maturity, he wanted to leave in order to practice the Dharma, but his parents did not permit him to do so. Unable to find any other way, he saw that he could only escape through some felonious action. He killed one of the king's children and was then banished as punishment. Taking ordination from the pandita Shakyabodhi, he was named Shakya Senge.
Whatever the case, Master Padma was not an ordinary, material person. We should understand that all his deeds and life examples are a magical display shown to convert people according to their individual inclinations. By regarding him as a normal human being, we will fail to perceive even a fraction of his enlightened qualities.
This is not just an exaggerated praise tenaciously offered by old ignorant followers of the Nyingma School; Padmakara was foretold by Buddha When reaching maturity, he wanted to leave in order to practice the Dharma, but his parents did not permit him to do so. Unable to find any other way, he saw that he could only escape through some felonious action. He killed one of the king's children and was then banished as punishment. Taking ordination from the pandita Shakyabodhi, he was named Shakya Senge.
Whatever the case, Master Padma was not an ordinary, material person. We should understand that all his deeds and life examples are a magical display shown to convert people according to their individual inclinations. By regarding him as a normal human being, we will fail to perceive even a fraction of his enlightened qualities.
There's no way that someone like Padmasambhava would kill someone just to attain the path of Enlightenment, unless that person he were to "kill" in wrath was a mara or demon who needed to be slain, yet transcendentally not slain simultaniously, given a new life or sent to a place of punishment by Transcendental powers. With that being said. Padmasambhava or any Buddha would never kill an innocent person or even a very sinful person as a so-called provisory act, because that would become incredibly selfish and go against the precept, and set Him back, being impossible, as He has reached the state of no regression as a Buddha. A Buddha cannot commit any falsehood, no matter what.
Last edited by Budai on Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
This is not just an exaggerated praise tenaciously offered by old ignorant followers of the Nyingma School; Padmakara was foretold by Buddha When reaching maturity, he wanted to leave in order to practice the Dharma, but his parents did not permit him to do so. Unable to find any other way, he saw that he could only escape through some felonious action. He killed one of the king's children and was then banished as punishment. Taking ordination from the pandita Shakyabodhi, he was named Shakya Senge.
Whatever the case, Master Padma was not an ordinary, material person. We should understand that all his deeds and life examples are a magical display shown to convert people according to their individual inclinations. By regarding him as a normal human being, we will fail to perceive even a fraction of his enlightened qualities.
There's no way that someone like Padmasambhava would kill someone just to attain the path of Enlightenment, unless that person he were to "kill" in wrath was a mara or demon who needed to be slain, yet transcendentally not slain simultaniously, given a new life or sent to a place of punishment by Transcendental powers. With that being said. Padmasambhava or any Buddha would never kill an innocent person or even a very sinful person as a so-called provisory act, because that would become incredibly selfish and go against the precept, and set Him back, being impossible, as He has reached the state of no regression as a Buddha. A Buddha cannot commit any falsehood, no matter what.
Don’t overthink it Brahma. He was a nirmanakaya, fully awakened, so whatever he did was display. The entity that appeared to have been killed was likely just another of his emanations... Trungpa Rinpoche spun it as an incidental act of coincidence, tendrel, without any intention: he was playing with a Vajra on the palace rooftop and dropped it, and it happened to fall and kill a woman and child.. so whatever the case may be, it wasn’t an act coming from afflictive emotion and that’s what is essential to note.. the consequences were necessary for his display to evolve and benefit the greatest number of beings however... so it was an important component of his story..
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
Brahma wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:31 am
There's no way that someone like Padmasambhava would kill someone just to attain the path of Enlightenment, unless that person he were to "kill" in wrath was a mara or demon who needed to be slain, yet transcendentally not slain simultaniously, given a new life or sent to a place of punishment by Transcendental powers. With that being said. Padmasambhava or any Buddha would never kill an innocent person or even a very sinful person as a so-called provisory act, because that would become incredibly selfish and go against the precept, and set Him back, being impossible, as He has reached the state of no regression as a Buddha. A Buddha cannot commit any falsehood, no matter what.
Those motivated by bodhicitta sometimes kill, Ra Lotsawa killed a ton of people because they defamed Vajrabhairava.
"I have never encountered a person who committed bad deeds." ― Ven. Jìngkōng
Brahma wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:31 am
There's no way that someone like Padmasambhava would kill someone just to attain the path of Enlightenment, unless that person he were to "kill" in wrath was a mara or demon who needed to be slain, yet transcendentally not slain simultaniously, given a new life or sent to a place of punishment by Transcendental powers. With that being said. Padmasambhava or any Buddha would never kill an innocent person or even a very sinful person as a so-called provisory act, because that would become incredibly selfish and go against the precept, and set Him back, being impossible, as He has reached the state of no regression as a Buddha. A Buddha cannot commit any falsehood, no matter what.
Those motivated by bodhicitta sometimes kill, Ra Lotsawa killed a ton of people because they defamed Vajrabhairava.
He claimed to have done so through sorcery. There is no evidence he ever killed anyone by his own hand.
Brahma wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:31 am
There's no way that someone like Padmasambhava would kill someone just to attain the path of Enlightenment, unless that person he were to "kill" in wrath was a mara or demon who needed to be slain, yet transcendentally not slain simultaniously, given a new life or sent to a place of punishment by Transcendental powers. With that being said. Padmasambhava or any Buddha would never kill an innocent person or even a very sinful person as a so-called provisory act, because that would become incredibly selfish and go against the precept, and set Him back, being impossible, as He has reached the state of no regression as a Buddha. A Buddha cannot commit any falsehood, no matter what.
Those motivated by bodhicitta sometimes kill, Ra Lotsawa killed a ton of people because they defamed Vajrabhairava.
And how exactly did they defame this yidam? I hardly see reason to killing people just for disagreeing with your deity.
pemachophel wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:00 pm
Just as the tshog chang in a ganachakra is not alcohol.
That depends on whether you are Catholic Tibetan Buddhist, in which case you believe in actual transubstantiation, or a Protestant Tibetan Buddhist, in which case you believe they are merely symbols.
pemachophel wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:00 pm
Just as the tshog chang in a ganachakra is not alcohol.
That depends on whether you are Catholic Tibetan Buddhist, in which case you believe in actual transubstantiation, or a Protestant Tibetan Buddhist, in which case you believe they are merely symbols.
As a former Presbyterian, the latter is how I interpret things.
pemachophel wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 4:00 pm
Just as the tshog chang in a ganachakra is not alcohol.
That depends on whether you are Catholic Tibetan Buddhist, in which case you believe in actual transubstantiation, or a Protestant Tibetan Buddhist, in which case you believe they are merely symbols.
As a former Presbyterian, the latter is how I interpret things.
Thought Presbyterians go for real-but-not-physical presence? "Totally symbolic" is actually a fringe position in Christianity.
Générosité de l’invisible.
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.
Edmond Jabès
That depends on whether you are Catholic Tibetan Buddhist, in which case you believe in actual transubstantiation, or a Protestant Tibetan Buddhist, in which case you believe they are merely symbols.
As a former Presbyterian, the latter is how I interpret things.
Thought Presbyterians go for real-but-not-physical presence? "Totally symbolic" is actually a fringe position in Christianity.
The fact that tshog chang is amrit and no longer chang/alcohol is the reason why layperson's holding the five vows can drink the tshog chang without breaking their vow. I was taught this by a Khenchen, Konchog Gyamtsho.
pemachophel wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:05 am
The fact that tshog chang is amrit and no longer chang/alcohol is the reason why layperson's holding the five vows can drink the tshog chang without breaking their vow. I was taught this by a Khenchen, Konchog Gyamtsho.
Yes, this one interpretation. There are others, for example. ChNN.
That depends on whether you are Catholic Tibetan Buddhist, in which case you believe in actual transubstantiation, or a Protestant Tibetan Buddhist, in which case you believe they are merely symbols.
As a former Presbyterian, the latter is how I interpret things.
Thought Presbyterians go for real-but-not-physical presence? "Totally symbolic" is actually a fringe position in Christianity.
That’s not how we looked at it back in my days. Just sat in pulpits, ate some cut pieces of plain, white bread, and drank some grape juice from little plastic cups passed around in a metal tray. Nothing really major, just remembering Christ’s flesh and blood; not so much the Catholic heaviness on the Eucharist being the literal Christ in flesh, etc. ( and I heard the Orthodox priests have to lick the holy sacraments off the ground if it falls)