I have no idea what you are saying.Coëmgenu wrote: in the Sthaviravāda and Sarvāstivāda schools, nirvāṇa is considered a special class of dharma, an unconditioned dharma (abyākatā dharmapratyisambhidā). That doesn't really pertain directly to answering the question of "Is nirvāṇa/buddhahood a dharma or not", but it is an interesting aside.
As far as I know, in the overall Lotus-Sūtra tradition (Tiāntái, etc, perhaps Nichiren Buddhism too), just as in the Sthaviravāda-Sarvaāstivāda, nirvāṇa is considered an unconditioned dharma, as in, "the unconditioned dharmakāya" that is the "Primordial/Unconditioned Buddha". Am I not correct in regards to this?
Tiāntái interpenetrational doctrine also becomes highly suspect if the Buddha-Realm, the Dharmakāya, nor the Pure Land atop Gṛdhrakūṭa (Lotus Sutra 16) is not an unconditioned element (dhātu) of all dharmas.
Now that could be deemed some form of sarcasm if left alone .
you can take it exactly how it reads.
I just cannot think this way.
it's beyond my scope of undesrstanding Buddhist thought, when spoken like that.
what i asked basically is this..
what is meant by ...The Buddha is not dharma..
i went on in my post explaining how i view Dharma.
like everything is dharma..or Dharma is behind "IT ALL"
But the Buddha is outside our scope of Dharma and everything we dwell in....and yet He appeared here ....somehow...and continues to.....somehow...