My thoughts on the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
Post Reply
ArchangelIdiotis
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 03, 2022 4:56 am

My thoughts on the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by ArchangelIdiotis »

I recently read the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, in its entirety. These interpretations are from this edition.

The biggest controversy I’m aware of concerning the Sutra is that Buddha suddenly says there is a Self, when previously he had consistently claimed there is no self. What I read in the Sutra is that Buddha claimed to say there is no self (from a standpoint wherein this is indeed true) so that the practitioner cannot be “arrogant” - so that there is no self to take pride in. This accomplished, people were reading too much into the notion of no self, more than was intended, so he introduced the concept of the Buddha Self as residing within all beings.

My inference is that contemplation upon the Buddha Self is supposed to impart the same psychological state as the Buddha resides in, without inflaming pride.

I found of considerable interest a story in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra wherein a king had killed his father to become king, and he was struggling with the idea of going to hell for it after he died, and Buddha said he would put off Parinirvana for the sake of this king. Perhaps I’ve read too much conspiracy theory, but I instantly thought, “What if it was necessary to put off enlightenment for the Buddha, a king, because of the attitude of king killing kings? A mere pragmatic strategy.”

Here I must apologize to readers of my previous post on these forums about Nirvana, for clashing with public sentiment, and risking doing so again. I ask for the right to be wrong, even if grotesquely misled in my suspicions, and would not risk posting unless I thought other readers would find something of value in my post.

The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra got me to rethink my concept of Nirvana. One point of contention when I brought up the subject previously was that my former opinion about Nirvana was just another attachment, and an ego persisted. I consider this argument well merited. However, one of the firmest held arguments against my Nirvana guess was that it couldn’t be real if I thought Buddhas or Bodhisattvas experienced love. Having read, and written and meditated on, the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, I still think some form of love is experienced by Nirvana conscious beings.

I consider the most likely explanation as to why it doesn’t seem that way to be twofold: mistranslation of the wording of the Sutras, or mistranslation of their intended meaning. To illustrate how this could happen, a quote from the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

"Also, emancipation is lovelessness [desirelessness]. Love is of two kinds. One is hungry [craving] love and the other love of Dharma. True love is not possessed of hungry love. As there is love for all beings, there is the love of Dharma. Such love of Dharma is true emancipation. True emancipation is the Tathagata.” - from Chapter 7: On the Four Aspects

At first, the quote seems to directly refute the concept of love. This is quickly corrected to mean love in the sense of desire.

I include a further quote to illustrate that Nirvana probably includes a component of love. The text is filled with similarly directing sentiments:

Great Loving-Kindness and Great Compassion are the Buddha-Nature - from Chapter 39: On Bodhisattva Lion’s Roar (g)

In the sutra under discussion, the Buddha seems unimpacted when people die, and he mentions meditation on the Void per way of explanation. Nirvana is explained as being acausal, yet it is stipulated that everything is causal.

Today, the Tathagata [i.e. Buddha] the Alms-deserving and Perfectly Awakened One, pities, protects and, with an undivided mind, sees beings as he does his [son] Rahula. - first paragraph of the sutra

The simplest interpretation of this quote that comes to my mind is that the Buddha is concerned for all beings (“pities”), and sees them with equal love to a son. The sutra elsewhere describes the importance of seeing all beings as one’s son (admittedly here the text does not directly state “all beings”).

Elsewhere, the Sutra states that the Buddha does not have attachment. Love in the sense of attachment.

It is my opinion that Nirvana results if pride (and humility/humiliation) is released entirely, along with all emotions other than love. Love purified of the ego would be all embracing, none attached. And because unconditional, this love would feed on itself, expanding endlessly apart from triggers (apart from causality). Meditation on the Void might result from that the ego no longer keeps going an internal dialogue. And without attachment, there is no longer any sorrow when others die; yet the selfless nature of love simplified continues on a “pity” (altruistic concern) for all beings.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13255
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: My thoughts on the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by Ayu »

Pardon me, I moved your topic from Sutra Studies to the Lounge. Here you have more freedom for following your assumptions about the Sutra.
ArchangelIdiotis
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 03, 2022 4:56 am

Re: My thoughts on the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Post by ArchangelIdiotis »

thank you kindly!
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”