No potential for Buddhahood? (from "Can Women ...")

[Malcolm]

Are you now going to adopt the yogacara position that there are also so called icchantikas, sentient beings absolutely incapable of bUddhahood?

Arya Asanga, a Third Ground bodhisattva, says in his Bodhisattvabhumi that women cannot reach annutarasamyaksambodhi. Because they have too many mental afflictions and inferior wisdom.

During the first of the three big kalpas bodhisattvas use female bodies if they wish, but after that time period (a mere 10 to the 59th power years) the use only male bodies. So women can become great bodhisattvas, but not full Buddhas.

See Engle's new translation The Bodhisattva Path to Unsurpassed Enlightenment, pp 169-70.

The Astasahasrika says otherwise, attributing the freedom from female birth to much higher level bodhisattvas.

"Endowed with these attributes, tokens and signs a Bodhisattva should be borne in mind as irreversible from full enlightenment. Furthermore, an irreversible Bodhisattva does not pander to Shramanas and Brahmins of other schools, telling them that they know what is worth knowing, that they see what is worth seeing. He pays no homage to strange Gods, offers them no flowers, incenses, etc., does not put his trusts in them. He is no more reborn in the places of woe, nor does he ever again become a woman."
(PP 8000 17.1, tr Conze)

No PDF yet, so I have been too lazy (until now) to quote the full passage:

All buddhas are the same in every respect and free of differences, except for these four things: life span, name, caste, and physical size. The distinction among buddhas is due to a variation in these four qualities and not to anything else whatsoever.

A woman cannot attain unsurpassed true and complete enlightenment. Why is that?

Once a bodhisattva has passed beyond the first [period of a] countless number of kalpas he abandons the state of being a woman, and [from then on] until he sits at the seat of enlightenment, he will never again become a woman.
The entirerty of womankind naturally possesses a great many mental afflictions and is subject to inferior wisdom, and it is not possible for [a person with] a mind stream that naturally possesses a great many mental afflictions and is subject to inferior wisdom to attain unsurpassed true and complete enlightenment.

The first short graph giving the only four distinctions among buddhas does not list sex.

As to what exactly Astus means by 'much higher level bodhisattvas', I do not know. In any case both this sutra and Asanga agree that at some point the woman state is not used. That does not mean that female buddhas or bodhisattvas do not appear. At the 8th Ground the power to appear as any sort of being, even buddhas, is gained.

The main reason for bringing up this subject again is that I tired of seeing all the sociology supposedly ruling the buddhadharma.

[newbie]

The thing is like this: In "The Aspiration of Samanthabhadra", there is a promise to sentient beings.
The key lies with the mental afflictions.
maybay made a refference to 2 of them: anger which can be purified and pride which also can be purified.
I think thus that due to SB's promise, many things are possible.

[Nicholas Weeks]

Malcolm: Are you now going to adopt the yogacara position that there are also so called icchantikas, sentient beings absolutely incapable of buddhahood?

Always have, since Maitreya bodhisattva says so in his Ornament IV:11 and Ju Mipham accepts that:

“Lack of potential” can mean either that the cause of liberation is temporarily lacking or that liberation remains permanently impossible.”

Excerpt From: Maitreya. “Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras.” iBooks.

The group where 'liberation remains permanently impossible' is quite small, one hopes.

[Malcolm]

So you understand that this point of view is utterly rejected by Madhyamaka?

Why would anyone wish to follow the tenets of a lower school when there is a higher one available? As for Mipham, this is not hus personal position.

Malcolm: Are you now going to adopt the yogacara position that there are also so called icchantikas, sentient beings absolutely incapable of buddhahood?

Always have, since Maitreya bodhisattva says so in his Ornament IV:11 and Ju Mipham accepts that:

“Lack of potential” can mean either that the cause of liberation is temporarily lacking or that liberation remains permanently impossible.”

Excerpt From: Maitreya. “Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras.” iBooks.

The group where 'liberation remains permanently impossible' is quite small, one hopes.

[Malcolm]

"Irreverisble" refers to the 8th bhumi which requires two incalculable kalpas to reach. Being that the words from a sutra trump that of a sastra, Asanga is incorrect in this case if the translations are correct.

And as pointed out, at any rate beings do not realise buddhahood in a female body in sutrayana, and saying that they do is both extra-textual and contra-textual.

Maintaining that woman are incapable of attaining buddhahood in a female bidy is a samaya violation for any Vajrayana practitioner, just as holding that there are icchantikas.

[Nicholas Weeks]

There is more to buddhadharma than 'views' and refutations or supports thereof, Malcolm.

If there is not a thread already on those with no potential or just lacking it, we ought to have one. A very interesting subject.

[Malcolm]

There is more to buddhadharma than 'views' and refutations or supports thereof, Malcolm.

If there is not a thread already on those with no potential or just lacking it, we ought to have one. A very interesting subject.

Yes, there are also provisional teachings and definitive ones; follow the latter, not former. This why no one follows yogacara anymore. They observe too many provisional teachings.

[Nicholas Weeks]

Yes, there are also provisional teachings and definitive ones; follow the latter, not former. This why no one follows yogacara anymore. They observe too many provisional teachings.

Odd, is it not, that our future Buddha Maitreya taught what he did and now 'no one follows' it anymore - or so Malcolm says.

[Malcolm]

Yes, there are also provisional teachings and definitive ones; follow the latter, not former. This why no one follows yogacara anymore. They observe too many provisional teachings.

Odd, is it not, that our future Buddha Maitreya taught what he did and now 'no one follows' it anymore - or so Malcolm says.

Maitreyanatha was an Indian scholar, not the future buddha.

[Nicholas Weeks]

Yes, there are also provisional teachings and definitive ones; follow the latter, not former. This why no one follows yogacara anymore. They observe too many provisional teachings.

Odd, is it not, that our future Buddha Maitreya taught what he did and now 'no one follows' it anymore - or so Malcolm says.

Maitreyanatha was an Indian scholar, not the future buddha.

So when Arya Asanga went to Tushita realm and was taught the Maitreyan corpus, it was an Indian scholar who taught from Tushita heaven, not Maitreya bodhisattva who lives there? I think not.

The tradition of Maitreya the Regent is supported by Mipham, Vasubandhu and many others - it is strong enough to satisfy me.

[maybay]

There is more to buddhadharma than 'views' and refutations or supports thereof, Malcolm.

If there is not a thread already on those with no potential or just lacking it, we ought to have one. A very interesting subject.

Yes, there are also provisional teachings and definitive ones; follow the latter, not former. This why no one follows yogacara anymore. They observe too many provisional teachings.

You needn't chose one in place of the other. But do chose patience and resolve over petulance and obduracy. If for no other reason than better health.

[Malcolm]

There is more to buddhadharma than 'views' and refutations or supports thereof, Malcolm.

If there is not a thread already on those with no potential or just lacking it, we ought to have one. A very interesting subject.

Yes, there are also provisional teachings and definitive ones; follow the latter, not former. This why no one follows yogacara anymore. They observe too many provisional teachings.

You needn't chose one in place of the other. But do chose patience and resolve over petulance and obduracy. If for no other reason than better health.

Yes, you must choose, actually. The sutras themselves indicate this.

[Losal Samten]

"Irreverisble" refers to the 8th bhumi which requires two incalculable kalpas to reach. Being that the words from a sutra trump that of a sastra, Asanga is incorrect in this case if the translations are correct.

And as pointed out, at any rate beings do not realise buddhahood in a female body in sutrayana, and saying that they do is both extra-textual and contra-textual.

Maintaining that woman are incapable of attaining buddhahood in a female bidy is a samaya violation for any Vajrayana practitioner, just as holding that there are icchantikas.

Good thing I'm not doing that then, eh? Of course the Basis/Path/Fruit of the tantras overrides the Basis/Path/Fruit of the sutras.

However I do not think that misrepresenting/whitewashing the sutras does anyone any benefit.

No, this is a miastake. If this is the case, then it would be possible to identify a tathagata through marks, a possibility excluded by the Vajrachedika among other sutras.

If it was possible to identify a tathagata through marks, then they couldn't emanate as bridges, books and so on. This is a response to the Hinayana belief that the buddha actually did the twelve deeds in fact, and not as an enlightened display. At any rate, only a buddha can truly know a buddha.

By the way, do obscurations or the alayavijnana/seeds count as marks?

[Malcolm]

"Irreverisble" refers to the 8th bhumi which requires two incalculable kalpas to reach. Being that the words from a sutra trump that of a sastra, Asanga is incorrect in this case if the translations are correct.

And as pointed out, at any rate beings do not realise buddhahood in a female body in sutrayana, and saying that they do is both extra-textual and contra-textual.

Maintaining that woman are incapable of attaining buddhahood in a female bidy is a samaya violation for any Vajrayana practitioner, just as holding that there are icchantikas.

Good thing I'm not doing that then, eh? Of course the Basis/Path/Fruit of the tantras overrides the Basis/Path/Fruit of the sutras.

However I do not think that misrepresenting/whitewashing the sutras does anyone any benefit.

Some sutras are provisional, others are not. In general, yogacara sutras are provisional and interpretable because they contain doctrines such as icchantikas and so on. The idea that huddhahood is gender based is also provisional and not definitive, no whitevwashing required.

[Losal Samten]

Some sutras are provisional, others are not. In general, yogacara sutras are provisional and interpretable because they contain doctrines such as icchantikas and so on. The idea that huddhahood is gender based is also provisional and not definitive, no whitevwashing required.

In that case the Prajnaparamita in 8000 lines is provisional, and all that's left to be definitive is a nonaffirming negation, where is is no path nor fruit because everything is already empty, so we all might as well lie in our filth staring at the ceiling because there's nothing to do, and nothing to realise.

Until a sutra is given where a being attains buddhahood in a female body, then that statement goes against Prajnaparamita literature, Yogacara literature, and outlying literature like the Lotus sutra.

Still, storm in a teacup.

[Malcolm]

In that case the Prajnaparamita in 8000 lines is provisional

??? Explain.

Where in Prajñāpāramita sūtras does it explain a woman cannot become a Buddha?

[Losal Samten]

Where in Prajñāpāramita sūtras does it explain a woman cannot become a Buddha?

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=337330#p337330

[Malcolm]

Where in Prajñāpāramita sūtras does it explain a woman cannot become a Buddha?

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?p=337330#p337330

That does not explain that women cannot become buddhas.

[Bristollad]

Severed lineage:

Because hatred for the Mahayana Dharma is the cause of those bearing wrong view and craving [not attaining enlightenment for a long time], the teaching that "Those bearing wrong view and craving bear the property of never attaining nirvana", is taught with the intention with respect to other times for the sake of overcoming hatred for the Mahayana Dharma. Never ever becoming pure is not fitting, because, with the intention that that which is suitable to be pure exists in all sentient beings without distinction, the Bhagavan taught that:

Although beginningless, possessing an end,
The bearer of the property of permanent purity by nature,
Is not seen, concealed by a cover on the outside since beginningless time,
Just like a concealed golden statue.

commentary by Asanga on the Mahayana Treatise on the Sublime Continuum (Mahayanottaratantrasastra)
In other words, teaching a severed lineage is provisional and is contradicted by the teachings on the Tathagatagarbha.

Quoted from "The Explanation Ornament of the Essence [by Gyeltsab Je] along with the Root text of the Treatise of Quintessential Instructions of the Perfection of Wisdom: Ornament for Clear Realisation [by Maitreya] and the Commentary Clear Meaning[by Haribhadra]."

[Grigoris]

Absolutely incapable? Like lacking Tathagatagarbha?

Not incapable due to their current grasping to wrong views, but completely and utterly irredeemable? Trapped forever in samsara?

Reminds me of some of the nonsense Baptist Christians talk about...

But surely for a state/condition to be eternal and immutable it would have to be unconditioned. So how does that work? Unconditioned ignorance???