An interesting point was raised in a separate thread, and I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle.
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=27200&p=421095#p421004
What do you make of the self-referential moments in the Lotus Sutra? How do you understand those?
This certainly isn't the only sutra I know of that includes self-referential discourse, but it is the only one I know of that does so in the context of an elaborated narrative.
Self-referential aspects of Lotus Sutra
Re: Self-referential aspects of Lotus Sutra
Can't speak in general, but in East Asian Lotus tradition, True Mahayana (as opposed to Provisional Mahayana) is all considered the Lotus. My basis in saying this is that I've found that Mahaparinirvana Sutra will be quoted as referring to or elaborating the Lotus when the text literally refers to Mahayana.
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: Self-referential aspects of Lotus Sutra
The Nirvana Sūtra refers to the Lotus exactly once.Queequeg wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:09 am Can't speak in general, but in East Asian Lotus tradition, True Mahayana (as opposed to Provisional Mahayana) is all considered the Lotus. My basis in saying this is that I've found that Mahaparinirvana Sutra will be quoted as referring to or elaborating the Lotus when the text literally refers to Mahayana.
Re: Self-referential aspects of Lotus Sutra
For what I can say even in the Agama Buddha never negates the self, because anatta is not not self, in the western intending of that. This is millennia misunderstanding of Buddhadharma that brought about a nihilistic adrift. Even a chair is anatta, and of course it means something different form the 'I' as we intend it, in western culture. No Guru, would have sense the need of remarcking that a chair, or a table, are anatta! plus, to destory a chair is not a crime, to destroy a sentient being is quite different, because, the sentient being have something, a spiritual essence. I know now days is seen as heretical, to talk about a spiritual essence, but these due with the misunderstanding I spoke before. This spiritual essence is what allow you to awake, trascending the skanda spheres world. So, Lotus Sutra is in line with old Pali text as well, where anatta was just an upaya in order to teach freedom of mind and jnana, and Buddha never taught any theory of tha not-self. He was just using various upaya, i.e anatta according with need of people. Then, as the Draft Sutta says clearly, these upaya are to be drop, once you reach the other shore. All the best. DanDGA wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:26 pm An interesting point was raised in a separate thread, and I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle.
https://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f ... 95#p421004
What do you make of the self-referential moments in the Lotus Sutra? How do you understand those?
This certainly isn't the only sutra I know of that includes self-referential discourse, but it is the only one I know of that does so in the context of an elaborated narrative.