Is the "Eternal Buddha" mentioned anywhere else besides the Lotus Sutra?

If you're new to the forum or new to Buddhism, this is the best place for your questions. Responses require moderator approval before they are visible.
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 786
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Is the "Eternal Buddha" mentioned anywhere else besides the Lotus Sutra?

Postby Minobu » Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:40 pm

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.


I have no idea what you are saying.

Now that could be deemed some form of sarcasm if left alone .
or

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...
As he died to make men holy
Let us die to make things cheap
And say the Mea Culpa which you’ve probably forgot
Year by year
Month by month
Day by day
Thought by thought

Leonard Cohen

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Is the "Eternal Buddha" mentioned anywhere else besides the Lotus Sutra?

Postby Coëmgenu » Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:28 pm

Minobu wrote:
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.


I have no idea what you are saying.

Now that could be deemed some form of sarcasm if left alone .
or

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...
I was just adding my two cents, that Buddha, Buddhahood, and Nirvāṇa are usually considered dharmas that are unconditioned.
"My pure land is not destroyed,
yet the multitude sees it as consumed in fire,
with anxiety, fear, and other sufferings
filling it everywhere."
(Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra XVI)

All these dharmāḥ are the status of dharma, the standing of dharma, the suchness of dharma; the dharma neither departs from things-as-they-are, nor differs from things-as-they-are; it is the truth, reality, without distortion.(SA 296, 因緣法)
揭諦揭諦,波羅揭諦,波羅僧揭諦,菩提薩婆訶(Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayasya Mantra)

User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is the "Eternal Buddha" mentioned anywhere else besides the Lotus Sutra?

Postby Zhen Li » Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:22 am

I think the more fundamental premise that needs to be understood is that the term "dharma" in Sanskrit can have two meanings: phenomenon and the doctrine of the Buddha. If it is phenomenon, I would still use the word "dharma" but not capitalize it, but if it is doctrine, it is capitalized.

So, a phenomenon refers to something that exists in the world. Something that exists in the world can have form or be formless, can arise, abide, and cease. Nirvana is neither form or formless, and does not arise, abide, or cease, so it cannot be said to exist/not-exist/both exist and not-exist/neither exist nor not-exist. Therefore, Nirvana is not a dharma. The same is said of the Buddha.

If this is proving difficult still, take it slowly and don't give up.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Is the "Eternal Buddha" mentioned anywhere else besides the Lotus Sutra?

Postby Coëmgenu » Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:06 am

Zhen Li wrote:I think the more fundamental premise that needs to be understood is that the term "dharma" in Sanskrit can have two meanings: phenomenon and the doctrine of the Buddha. If it is phenomenon, I would still use the word "dharma" but not capitalize it, but if it is doctrine, it is capitalized.

So, a phenomenon refers to something that exists in the world. Something that exists in the world can have form or be formless, can arise, abide, and cease. Nirvana is neither form or formless, and does not arise, abide, or cease, so it cannot be said to exist/not-exist/both exist and not-exist/neither exist nor not-exist. Therefore, Nirvana is not a dharma. The same is said of the Buddha.

If this is proving difficult still, take it slowly and don't give up.
But most schools of Buddhism I have been exposed to disagree with you on that. In East Asian madhyamika particularly, it is considered that Nirvāṇa,and Dharmakāya, alike are both unconditioned dharma, or at the very least an unconditioned dhātu (element) which interpenetrates (ie Buddha-dhātu) the other dharmas.
"My pure land is not destroyed,
yet the multitude sees it as consumed in fire,
with anxiety, fear, and other sufferings
filling it everywhere."
(Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra XVI)

All these dharmāḥ are the status of dharma, the standing of dharma, the suchness of dharma; the dharma neither departs from things-as-they-are, nor differs from things-as-they-are; it is the truth, reality, without distortion.(SA 296, 因緣法)
揭諦揭諦,波羅揭諦,波羅僧揭諦,菩提薩婆訶(Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayasya Mantra)

User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is the "Eternal Buddha" mentioned anywhere else besides the Lotus Sutra?

Postby Zhen Li » Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:03 am

My apologies, I meant to say an unconditioned dharma. Complete mix up.

The difference with Madhyamaka is that none of these, fundamentally, can be said to exist or not.

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 786
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Is the "Eternal Buddha" mentioned anywhere else besides the Lotus Sutra?

Postby Minobu » Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:29 am

can anyone explain unconditioned in the sense of unconditioned dharma and unconditioned Dharma,

thanks for your patience with me
As he died to make men holy
Let us die to make things cheap
And say the Mea Culpa which you’ve probably forgot
Year by year
Month by month
Day by day
Thought by thought

Leonard Cohen

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Is the "Eternal Buddha" mentioned anywhere else besides the Lotus Sutra?

Postby Coëmgenu » Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:53 am

Zhen Li wrote:My apologies, I meant to say an unconditioned dharma. Complete mix up.

The difference with Madhyamaka is that none of these, fundamentally, can be said to exist or not.
I was only not being specific enough about that I was talking about. Early Tiāntái (ie the writing of Zhìyǐ) comes out of a movement called "East Asian Madhyamika" (which later blended with yogācāra to form contemporary Tiāntái and Tendai), which shares a lot of features with the Indian Madhyamika (ie Nāgārjuna's Madhyamika), but not all. The teachings on interpenetrationality and the 10 suchnesses (十如是) and their consequence in yī niàn sān qiān 一念三千 (ichinen sanzen) are not common to all Madhyamika schools, they are something of a uniquely Chinese insight. As such, other Buddhisms might explain things differently without necessarily being "wrong".

Buddhism is a wide and varied path, with lots of teachings, and all of this "unconditioned dharma" stuff is, in some part, upāya. We're talking about the "ultimate" here when we talk about Nirvāṇa and Dharmakāya etc.

Its perfectly reasonable that a certain school should teach that Nirvāṇa isn't even a dharma, because the idea of an "unconditioned dharma" is certainly an unusual dharma to say the least. I just haven't encountered such a teaching. If it was a mistake, we all make them, but I hope I didn't inadvertently bully you into agreeing with me. I don't claim to have encyclopaedic gnosis of all Buddhist teachings and ways of expressing Nirvāṇa. If it is indeed a teaching in a certain school or sect that Dharmakāya isn't a dharma itself, which one teaches this?
"My pure land is not destroyed,
yet the multitude sees it as consumed in fire,
with anxiety, fear, and other sufferings
filling it everywhere."
(Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra XVI)

All these dharmāḥ are the status of dharma, the standing of dharma, the suchness of dharma; the dharma neither departs from things-as-they-are, nor differs from things-as-they-are; it is the truth, reality, without distortion.(SA 296, 因緣法)
揭諦揭諦,波羅揭諦,波羅僧揭諦,菩提薩婆訶(Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayasya Mantra)

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 786
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Is the "Eternal Buddha" mentioned anywhere else besides the Lotus Sutra?

Postby Minobu » Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:30 pm

Zhen Li wrote:My apologies, I meant to say an unconditioned dharma. Complete mix up.

The difference with Madhyamaka is that none of these, fundamentally, can be said to exist or not.

i don't think madhaymika question whether they exist or not exist ...more like the nature of existence , which is neither inherent or nihilistic in view.

i really am having trouble with unconditioned Dharma.
I think there is a problem in translation from sanskrit and Indian to english..take the word suchness and how it is used in Buddhist terms.
As he died to make men holy
Let us die to make things cheap
And say the Mea Culpa which you’ve probably forgot
Year by year
Month by month
Day by day
Thought by thought

Leonard Cohen

User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 1471
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Canada

Re: Is the "Eternal Buddha" mentioned anywhere else besides the Lotus Sutra?

Postby Zhen Li » Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:54 pm

Neverminding Madhyamika, Prajnaparamita texts claim they cannot be said to exist, not exist, etc.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Is the "Eternal Buddha" mentioned anywhere else besides the Lotus Sutra?

Postby Coëmgenu » Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:27 am

Minobu wrote:
Zhen Li wrote:My apologies, I meant to say an unconditioned dharma. Complete mix up.

The difference with Madhyamaka is that none of these, fundamentally, can be said to exist or not.

i don't think madhaymika question whether they exist or not exist ...more like the nature of existence , which is neither inherent or nihilistic in view.

i really am having trouble with unconditioned Dharma.
I think there is a problem in translation from sanskrit and Indian to english..take the word suchness and how it is used in Buddhist terms.
Unconditioned Dharma and unconditioned dharma(s) are not the same usage of the word dharma. Saying something is an unconditioned dharma is a little like saying it is an unconditioned phenomenon, or perhaps even unconditioned experience, but that is not the best term to use because it can lead to self-view-thickets quite easily.

Think of the line sarva-dharmāḥ śūnyatā-lakṣaṇā in the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya, the word "dharma", in its plural, is being used in its "phenomenon-esque" reading, rather than meaning Buddhadharma etc.
"My pure land is not destroyed,
yet the multitude sees it as consumed in fire,
with anxiety, fear, and other sufferings
filling it everywhere."
(Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra XVI)

All these dharmāḥ are the status of dharma, the standing of dharma, the suchness of dharma; the dharma neither departs from things-as-they-are, nor differs from things-as-they-are; it is the truth, reality, without distortion.(SA 296, 因緣法)
揭諦揭諦,波羅揭諦,波羅僧揭諦,菩提薩婆訶(Prajñāpāramitāhṛdayasya Mantra)


Return to “Discovering Mahayana Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests