Non Buddhist enlightenment

[Simon E.]

Enlightenment isn't Buddhist to begin with: it's just that Buddhism represents a well-tested and methodical path to get there, unlike what may be found elsewhere

There are other paths that are well tested and methodical. The question is whether they lead to the same goal as does Buddhadharma.

[kausalya]

Enlightenment isn't Buddhist to begin with: it's just that Buddhism represents a well-tested and methodical path to get there, unlike what may be found elsewhere

There are other paths that are well tested and methodical. The question is whether they lead to the same goal as does Buddhadharma.

I don't know if I'd agree with that, but I admit my wording was a bit lazy. From what I've seen, Buddhism is unique in its approach/level of detail concerning the successive stages, etc. That's primarily what I meant.

I do agree with you that it's hard to know about the results of other paths, which is why Buddhism may be considered the most expedient... but I'm rather biased.

[Caoimhghín]

Go on....

When you say hugely influential how widespread is this view in eastern Buddhism? And how does that sit with Rinzai or Soto teachings?

I only realized now that you probably wanted a citation of the vaipulya I was talking about, not general musings and a quote from a different work.

迦葉菩薩白佛言：「世尊！我從今日始得正見。世尊！自是之前，我等悉名邪見之人。
Mahākāśyapa Bodhisattva asked the Buddha to speak: "Bhagavān! I from today start in obtaining samyagdṛṣṭi. Bhagavān! Until now, we all entirely abided in mithyādṛṣṭi.

世尊！二十五有，有我不耶？」
Bhagavān! In the twenty five existences, there is ātman, no?

佛言：「善男子！我者即是如來藏義。一切眾生悉有佛性，即是我義。
The Buddha said: "Kulaputra! Ātman is tathāgatagarbha in meaning. All sentient beings in entirety have the Buddha’s nature, ātman is it’s meaning.

如是我義，從本已來，常為無量煩惱所覆，是故眾生不能得見。
Like this, ātman’s meaning is, from root proceeding onwards, constantly without limit under kleśāḥ covered, therefore sentient beings cannot obtain sight of it.

(T2016.524c16, Dharmakṣemasyabhikṣoḥ mahāyānamahāparinirvāṇasūtre tathāgatagarbhaparivartaḥ)

[Simon E.]

Which raises the question of provenance and (deep breath) authenticity in terms of mainstream Buddhadharma. Or even in mainstream Zen.

[Caoimhghín]

Which raises the question of provenance and (deep breath) authenticity in terms of mainstream Buddhadharma. Or even in mainstream Zen.

I'm not sure if one popular scripture would be enough for that, IMO.

In the excerpt quoted before from the Taishō recension of the Uttaratantraśāstra it is the signless wisdom of the Tathāgata that is indwelling, unobstructed, etc, possessed by sarvasattvāḥ, all sentient beings. In the Mahāyānamahāparinirvāṇasūtra it is the tathāgatagarbha which is ātman. I imagine these tathāgatagarbhāḥ as ātmānaḥ could be given the properties of "indwelling", "unobstructed" omnipenetration into all sentient beings, being present in all sentient beings, etc.

Where does ātman become just a word? Where does it become a wrong-view?

They say that we have occultated Buddha-bodies. Where?

[DharmaChakra]

Namaste

When i see a certain class of Buddhist think or claim that they are the only ones that have the keys and methods to enlightenment it always comes across as very similar to Christians saying that their way is the only way.

Cultural phenomenon ?

Quoting texts like the old way of quoting the bible

Poor dr frog

[Caoimhghín]

Poor dr frog

How did you know I was French!

[Anders]

Which raises the question of provenance and (deep breath) authenticity in terms of mainstream Buddhadharma. Or even in mainstream Zen.

I don't think it is controversial to say that 'true self' as a term has seen widespread provisional, and often casual, usage in east-asian Buddhism.

I don't see it as something typically greatly emphasized or explained. But then, much of east-asian Buddhism, and of course Zen most of all, has a more utilitarian approach to terminology than Tibetan Buddhism. Is it ultimately wrong? Yes, but so is speaking in the first place. If it gets a point across, it'll be used.

[Simon E.]

Which raises the question of provenance and (deep breath) authenticity in terms of mainstream Buddhadharma. Or even in mainstream Zen.

I'm not sure if one popular scripture would be enough for that, IMO.

In the excerpt quoted before from the Taishō recension of the Uttaratantraśāstra it is the signless wisdom of the Tathāgata that is indwelling, unobstructed, etc, possessed by sarvasattvāḥ, all sentient beings. In the Mahāyānamahāparinirvāṇasūtra it is the tathāgatagarbha which is ātman. I imagine these tathāgatagarbhāḥ as ātmānaḥ could be given the properties of "indwelling", "unobstructed" omnipenetration into all sentient beings, being present in all sentient beings, etc.

Where does ātman become just a word? Where does it become a wrong-view?

They say that we have occultated Buddha-bodies. Where?

Well bear with me..as I say I have very little knowledge of Zen or far Eastern Buddhism generally.. But I would ask you and Anders how the use of a term which is used by the Buddha in the Suttas to denote a series of wrong concepts came to be used to mean its apparent opposite?

I ask in a spirit of wanting to understand.

[DharmaChakra]

Poor dr frog

How did you know I was French!

Hi Coëmgenu

I was not refering to you or anyone in particular but as a general cultural phenomenon.

Dr Frog is not referring to French people.

Proffesor frog read lots of books on the science of wells and ponds, he had amassed a great science and knowledge foundation of different types of wells and ponds that frogs like to habit.

Then one day he saw his friend who came back from to see him after he discovered an ocean. His friend told him about the ocean, vast, unlimited and streteched as far as the eye could see in all directions and could not find the bottom of the ocean.

Dr Frog was very interested and curious, and he started to ask if the ocean was similar to his well, and his friend say no its much more vast, so he said well , is it 5 times, 10 times 20 times 100 times, 1000 times the size of his well.

Dro Frog was stuck in manas, that which perceives things by measurement.

[Caoimhghín]

諸佛或說我　　或說於無我
All Buddhas either speak of self or speak of no self

諸法實相中　　無我無非我
Within the phenomenality of all phenomena there is neither self nor no self

諸法實相者　　心行言語斷
All phenomena's phenomenality is characterized by the ending of the mind, activities, and speech

無生亦無滅　　寂滅如涅槃
It is unarisen and unending, it is calm extinguishment, it is like nirvāṇa

一切實非實　　亦實亦非實
All is real, all is unreal, all is both real and unreal

非實非非實　　是名諸佛法
All is neither real nor unreal, this is called all Buddha's dharma

(T1564.23c16 Mūlamadhyamakaśāstra)

Note the positive tetralemma at the end. This is hugely important for placing East Asian Buddhism IMO.

[Simon E.]

Sorry..I am a pretty simple guy.
Its all too enigmatic for me.
My teachers say that there is no atman, no true self. No double negatives.
But different strokes and all that..

[Anders]

Well bear with me..as I say I have very little knowledge of Zen or far Eastern Buddhism generally.. But I would ask you and Anders how the use of a term which is used by the Buddha in the Suttas to denote a series of wrong concepts came to be used to mean its apparent opposite?

I ask in a spirit of wanting to understand.

The seed of it has been in the tathagatagarbha sutras since before it every made its way to China, so the concept as such has been part of the sino-mahayana corpus from the very early days when the Chinese were still working on how to sort out all these teachings.

China simply had different soteriological concerns to India and a different dichotomising frame of debate. Self/No-Self/Big-Self etc. is partly a big deal in Indian Buddhism because it's a big deal amongst its spiritual competitors where Self is placed dead centre of the soteriological matter. Sino-Buddhism has always held a stronger pragmatic emphasis than the logical emphasis that came to dominate the Indian Buddhism that Tibetan Buddhism inherited. Whether there really is a true self or not was just never that big a deal to East-asian Buddhists. They were more concerned with the real nature of the Way, whether there is such a thing as original enlightenment and so forth. phrases like "true self" never acquired the 'black speech of mordor' character it did in Indian Buddhism.

I think Jizang, one of the founding fathers of Chinese Madhyamika, led the way on how sino-Mahayana has primarily dealt with this in his favorable essays on certain formulations of tathagatagarbha as having soteriological utility, based on his dictum of "refuting what is misleading, revealing what is corrective" - Which is to say, he did not perceive any teachings as being correct per se, but simply 'corrective'.

Or condensed into applied form - If talk of a true self gets a point across, it'll be used. If misleading, it'll be refuted.

PS. In many ways, Jizang's dictum had its ultimate expression in Zen Buddhist encounter dialogues, where language was deliberately de-coupled from its apparent consensually abstracted meaning and using as purely pedagogical corrective instruments to address the listener's situation rather than the apparent topic at hand. Most famously of course, with Chao Chou's 'wu!' in response to the question of a dog's buddha-nature. Chao Chou was not responding as to the formal correctness of tathagatagarbha, but was rather correcting (in the sense of how a physioterapists corrects posture moreso than how a teacher correct's an essay) the questioner's perception of the matter as a spiritual question. On another occasion, he was asked the same question an answered 'yu' (yes, affirmative) instead.

[PSM]

It's worth remembering that the pugdalavadins were a large proportion of the Buddhists in India.

[Simon E.]

I can see the utilitarian argument, that when talk of a Self helps, then use it, but when it obscures don't..but I wonder whether that whole line of thought arose before mass communication and the subsequent opportunities for reification and concretisation of such concepts and if so..whether there is need for more circumspection?

[Anders]

I can see the utilitarian argument, that when talk of a Self helps, then use it, but when it obscures don't..but I wonder whether that whole line of thought arose before mass communication and the subsequent opportunities for reification and concretisation of such concepts and if so..whether there is need for more circumspection?

Probably.

At the same time, such circumspection should ideally also be able to take in the family teachings where such phrases are thrown around without raising red flags. It's a muddled affair either way.

[Simon E.]

I can see that.
My own participation in this particular thread was in large part because I could see clearly my own knee-jerk response to references to 'self' 'true self' 'real self' and so on.
However, Meido was I believe timely in his pointing out that Advaitins and the merely vague are making a parallel with Buddhadharma that does not exist in any tradition..the idea that has been described as a 'real nature' which is part of a great glowing Cosmic Pudding of Niceness.