You do realize the irony in protesting the comic book nature of the Mahayana Sutras, right?DGA wrote:comic-book-bad-guy
At this point in the Lotus a giant tower has come out of the ground and everyone is floating in the sky...
Regression possible when practising the Lotus Sutra?
Re: Regression possible when practising the Lotus Sutra?
At this point in the Lotus a giant tower has come out of the ground and everyone is floating in the sky...
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Re: Regression possible when practising the Lotus Sutra?
I was referring to the heroic good-guy-vs-bad-guy narratives you see in unconvincing, implausible commentaries that are well out of the mainstream of Mahayana, like this one: http://sokaspirit.org/1354/Queequeg wrote:You do realize the irony in protesting the comic book nature of the Mahayana Sutras, right?DGA wrote:comic-book-bad-guy
At this point in the Lotus a giant tower has come out of the ground and everyone is floating in the sky...
Have you tracked down any source in this chapter or the Lotus Sutra overall to support of your claim that Devadatta requires a trip to hell before his prediction of Buddhahood can be fulfilled?
How does Devadatta's presence on earth at the time of Shakyamuni's teaching of this sutra evidence anything in support of your claim? Bodhisattvas can and do behave in peculiar ways...
Re: Regression possible when practising the Lotus Sutra?
Did you actually read that or just the bullet points? It's a little Manichean in tone, but I don't know why you think its so far out of Mahayana mainstream.DGA wrote:
I was referring to the heroic good-guy-vs-bad-guy narratives you see in unconvincing, implausible commentaries that are well out of the mainstream of Mahayana, like this one: http://sokaspirit.org/1354/
The description of Devadatta in that article is right on point with his portrayal in the Tripitaka. See the chapter about Devadatta in Nanamoli's "Life of the Buddha" which is more or less a cut and paste biography drawn directly from the Theravada canon.
This article is actually more or less saying the same thing as your venerable Zen master, without pulling the "inconceivable" wild card. Actually, your Zen master is the one whose portrayal of the relationship between Devadatta and Shakyamuni is idiosyncratic by describing it as such a playful friendship. Not many sources would characterize the attempted murder of the Buddha as playful.
It's presumed that the reader is familiar with what happened to Devadatta. In all accounts except the Lotus, the Devadatta story ends with him in hell. Again, its this understanding of Devadatta that makes the Lotus shocking to many. That background is what makes the prediction of Buddhahood so poignant. Tell a Thai Buddhist that Devadatta becomes a Buddha and you will get a stink eye.Have you tracked down any source in this chapter or the Lotus Sutra overall to support of your claim that Devadatta requires a trip to hell before his prediction of Buddhahood can be fulfilled?
There are so-called five cardinal sins in Buddhism that are considered so bad that you immediately destroy all good roots in this life:
Injuring a Buddha
killing an Arhat
Creating schism in the society of Sangha
Matricide
Patricide
Devadatta committed three and encouraged Ajatasatru to patricide. Call it what you will, that's kind of evil... Definitely 'evil' in a Buddhist sense.
How does Devadatta's presence on earth at the time of Shakyamuni's teaching of this sutra evidence anything in support of your claim? Bodhisattvas can and do behave in peculiar ways...
You understand, at the time the Lotus is taught, Devadatta is dead, right?
Once we start down that 'inconceivable' path to explain things, we start getting unhinged from the gravity of cause and effect, from things like close textual analysis, etc., and we start spinning off into speculation and projection... Which brings us back to exegesis and the necessity of dwelling in emptiness so that we aren't carried away by what we want to see.
If you take time to read the Nanamoli book linked above, note the parallels in Devadatta's relationship with Ajatasatru and Asita's with the king. These texts are full of standard tropes, intentionally. The question then is what these tropes stand for in various contexts.
One more thing, if you think the comic book bad guy is so unbelievable, what of the comic book good guy who is the hero of the Buddhist Books series? They are comic books, indeed.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,