Dharma Wheel

astus wrote:The idea of "parinirvana" is generally not upheld by any Mahayana school but only as a skilful means, since buddhas remain helping sentient beings till the end of samsara. This is true for both the Jodoshu and Jodoshinshu as far as I know. Also note that one of the names of Amida is Infinite Life, i.e. he doesn't just "nirvana away" any time soon.

If I understand correctly, do all schools of Mahayana agree with the concept of Apratishtita (non-abiding) Nirvana ?

OTOH, are there any (historical) non-Mahayana schools that agree with the same concept ?

V

:/

I was under the impression that in the Tibetan tradition, Buddhas are beyond coming and going (that's what makes them Buddhas) but in relative terms, perfect Buddahood is a terminal end. Only the emanations of their aspirations, merit, and actions (or something like that) persist infinitely because they are so powerful.

Sort of like how a star burns out but we receive it's light for aeons.

Sorry I have no textual basis for this, I can't even recall where I heard it.

vinodh wrote:If I understand correctly, do all schools of Mahayana agree with the concept of Apratishtita (non-abiding) Nirvana ?

All doctrinal schools do. According to Yogācāra sources, apratiṣṭha nirvāṇa is the revolved basis (āśrayaparāvṛtti) that has eliminated the defilements without abandoning saṃsāra.

This is also related to the Trikāya doctrine (i.e three bodies). Emanation bodies (nirmaṇakāya) like Siddhārtha Gautama still display parinirvāṇa. According to Bhāviveka, this is done so that beings will become disgusted with saṃsāra and decide to take up the noble eightfold path.

vinodh wrote:OTOH, are there any (historical) non-Mahayana schools that agree with the same concept ?

Not that I'm aware of. However the term appatiṭṭha (Skt. apratiṣṭha) does occur in the Pāli Nikāyas in the context of an arhat's consciousness (e.g. SN 22.53) and also in the context of nirvāṇa (e.g. Udāna 8.1).

As I theorise it, non-abiding nirvana is based on nirvana with residue with the difference in emphasising that such residue (i.e. the aggregates) are empty so there is no need to get rid of them, and that's why the Mahayana criticism of the "sravaka nirvana" as nihilism.

"Unlocalized nirvana"... as opposed to "localized nirvana"?

A dualistic notion of nirvana... no way.

John Makransky's Buddhahood Embodied has a lot of discussion about apratishtita nirvana and is an excellent reference for those wishing to understand this concept and related ideas.

Nilasarasvati wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2013 1:01 am :/

I was under the impression that in the Tibetan tradition, Buddhas are beyond coming and going (that's what makes them Buddhas) but in relative terms, perfect Buddahood is a terminal end. Only the emanations of their aspirations, merit, and actions (or something like that) persist infinitely because they are so powerful.

Sort of like how a star burns out but we receive it's light for aeons.

Sorry I have no textual basis for this, I can't even recall where I heard it.

I heard this about Tibetans myself before.would you say that the ultimate Buddha hood is the same as Theravada conception of what nirvana is?

Does anyone know how the the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra treats this matter? I know it is famous as for its exposition of dharmakaya, among other things, but I'm not sure how this extremely long sutra treats the issue of paranirvana.

Since "paranirvana" is part of the Sutra's title, and as it is one of the most historically influential of the Mahayana Sutras, I imagine it would have something instructive to say on the issue.