Are you saying that the Lotus Sutra contradicts, say, Chapter Thirteen of the Guhyagarbha tantra? I had always thought they were compatible if interpreted in some kind of subtle way (i.e. the sravakayana and pratyekabuddhayanas necessarily funneling into the bodhisattvayana).Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:38 pmWell, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is one vehicle, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is the same (Candrakīriti's point of view) or three, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is not the same.
Which one is it?
Do Buddhas have to die? 1 or 3 or 4 Vehicles?
- Thomas Amundsen
- Posts: 2034
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
- Location: Helena, MT
- Contact:
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Sorry, can't play along with the choices you present.Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:38 pmWell, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is one vehicle, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is the same (Candrakīriti's point of view) or three, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is not the same.
Which one is it?
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: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
As you know, the Guhygarbha's statment, "Incorrect realization, partial realization, and not realizing perfectly," refers respectively to nonbuddhists, śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and those who practice the common Mahāyāna.Thomas Amundsen wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:55 pmAre you saying that the Lotus Sutra contradicts, say, Chapter Thirteen of the Guhyagarbha tantra? I had always thought they were compatible if interpreted in some kind of subtle way (i.e. the sravakayana and pratyekabuddhayanas necessarily funneling into the bodhisattvayana).Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:38 pmWell, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is one vehicle, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is the same (Candrakīriti's point of view) or three, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is not the same.
Which one is it?
However, in the Indian treatises, "ekayāna" means different things. For example, in the Lankāvatāra, ekayāna does not include all the other vehicles. "The One Vehicle" refers to Mahāyāna only because it has not been obtained in the past by others. It is stated that it is because of the karmic traces and knowledge obscuration śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have that the Buddha teaches three vehicles, and that the teaching of one vehicle is actually only for Mahāyānis. Given that the Lanka was set down quite some time later than the Saddharmapundarika, we can understand this as a response to it. Likewise, the Nirvana responds to the prediction of all sentient beings as capable of attaining Buddhahood in Saddharmapundarika with the notion of the icchantika, while at the same time promoting tathāgatagarbha, as contradictory as that may seem.
-
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Lmao, do you know what the "One Vehicle" refereed to in his tradition actually means?
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Sure.ItsRaining wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:27 amLmao, do you know what the "One Vehicle" refereed to in his tradition actually means?
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
(Still enjoying the Lotus Sutra debate...)
- Thomas Amundsen
- Posts: 2034
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:50 am
- Location: Helena, MT
- Contact:
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Very interesting! Thanks, Loppon!Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:10 amAs you know, the Guhygarbha's statment, "Incorrect realization, partial realization, and not realizing perfectly," refers respectively to nonbuddhists, śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and those who practice the common Mahāyāna.Thomas Amundsen wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:55 pmAre you saying that the Lotus Sutra contradicts, say, Chapter Thirteen of the Guhyagarbha tantra? I had always thought they were compatible if interpreted in some kind of subtle way (i.e. the sravakayana and pratyekabuddhayanas necessarily funneling into the bodhisattvayana).Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:38 pm
Well, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is one vehicle, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is the same (Candrakīriti's point of view) or three, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is not the same.
Which one is it?
However, in the Indian treatises, "ekayāna" means different things. For example, in the Lankāvatāra, ekayāna does not include all the other vehicles. "The One Vehicle" refers to Mahāyāna only because it has not been obtained in the past by others. It is stated that it is because of the karmic traces and knowledge obscuration śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have that the Buddha teaches three vehicles, and that the teaching of one vehicle is actually only for Mahāyānis. Given that the Lanka was set down quite some time later than the Saddharmapundarika, we can understand this as a response to it. Likewise, the Nirvana responds to the prediction of all sentient beings as capable of attaining Buddhahood in Saddharmapundarika with the notion of the icchantika, while at the same time promoting tathāgatagarbha, as contradictory as that may seem.
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Thomas Amundsen wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:49 amVery interesting! Thanks, Loppon!Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:10 amAs you know, the Guhygarbha's statment, "Incorrect realization, partial realization, and not realizing perfectly," refers respectively to nonbuddhists, śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and those who practice the common Mahāyāna.Thomas Amundsen wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:55 pm
Are you saying that the Lotus Sutra contradicts, say, Chapter Thirteen of the Guhyagarbha tantra? I had always thought they were compatible if interpreted in some kind of subtle way (i.e. the sravakayana and pratyekabuddhayanas necessarily funneling into the bodhisattvayana).
However, in the Indian treatises, "ekayāna" means different things. For example, in the Lankāvatāra, ekayāna does not include all the other vehicles. "The One Vehicle" refers to Mahāyāna only because it has not been obtained in the past by others. It is stated that it is because of the karmic traces and knowledge obscuration śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have that the Buddha teaches three vehicles, and that the teaching of one vehicle is actually only for Mahāyānis. Given that the Lanka was set down quite some time later than the Saddharmapundarika, we can understand this as a response to it. Likewise, the Nirvana responds to the prediction of all sentient beings as capable of attaining Buddhahood in Saddharmapundarika with the notion of the icchantika, while at the same time promoting tathāgatagarbha, as contradictory as that may seem.
I should add, that in Pali scriptures, ekayāna refers to the direct path.
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Returning to this ^^rory wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:57 am Of course this is what Malcolm et al. is about: the Lotus Sutra undermines suppositions of TB, ideas about everybody becoming a buddha, karmic transfer by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas , Jizo preaching in Hell to all beings, animals, insects all sentient beings being equal to humans goes against their school and I daresay their egos.
How does the Lotus Sutra undermine any supposition of any school of Tibetan Buddhism? What aspect of the Lotus Sutra are you referring to? What supposition are you referring to? And how is any of this warranted to the topic at hand?
If anyone cares to follow me down this rabbit hole, consider the posts below as a starting point:
viewtopic.php?f=102&t=27263&start=20#p422334
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
DGA wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:13 pmReturning to this ^^rory wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:57 am Of course this is what Malcolm et al. is about: the Lotus Sutra undermines suppositions of TB, ideas about everybody becoming a buddha, karmic transfer by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas , Jizo preaching in Hell to all beings, animals, insects all sentient beings being equal to humans goes against their school and I daresay their egos.
How does the Lotus Sutra undermine any supposition of any school of Tibetan Buddhism? What aspect of the Lotus Sutra are you referring to? What supposition are you referring to? And how is any of this warranted to the topic at hand?
If anyone cares to follow me down this rabbit hole, consider the posts below as a starting point:
viewtopic.php?f=102&t=27263&start=20#p422334
Her statements is a misconception piled upon misconception.
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
It seems to me that the Lotus Sutra and Chandrakirti are correct on this one. I think Zhiyi would take the same position; it would not be difficult for Tendai Daishi to answer this question.Queequeg wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:28 amSorry, can't play along with the choices you present.Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:38 pmWell, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is one vehicle, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is the same (Candrakīriti's point of view) or three, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is not the same.
Which one is it?
Do you disagree with the premise that someone who enters the sravakayana is not able to (or will not inevitably) enter Mahayana and attain Buddhahood?
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Nope. Once again, Malcolm dictates the course of discussion instead of being interested in an actual discussion.DGA wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:41 amIt seems to me that the Lotus Sutra and Chandrakirti are correct on this one. I think Zhiyi would take the same position; it would not be difficult for Tendai Daishi to answer this question.Queequeg wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:28 amSorry, can't play along with the choices you present.Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:38 pm
Well, you cannot have it both ways. Either there is one vehicle, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is the same (Candrakīriti's point of view) or three, in which case the emptiness realized by śrāvaka arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and buddhas is not the same.
Which one is it?
See p. 159
http://www.bdkamerica.org/system/files/ ... ode&id=496
That diagram shows the relative levels of enlightenment of the Buddhas in the various teachings from the Tiantai perspective.
Ekayana in the Lotus means that even when the Buddha teaches the the three vehicles he is actually teaching the one Buddhayana. Those on the sravakayana are taught arhatship and are aiming for arhatship; pratyekabuddhayana are aiming for pratyekabuddhahood; bodhisattvayana are taught a particular ideal of Buddhahood culminating after 3 eons of practice and they aim for that particular conception of Buddhahood. The actual goal of the Ekayana is not known within these paths. The Buddha is preparing them all to receive the Buddhayana. The Buddhayana is inconceivable to anyone within the three vehicles, even the bodhisattvayana.
Yes, I disagree. Even the Arhat, who rests in a phantom city for the time being, treads the Buddhayana, unbeknownst to her.Do you disagree with the premise that someone who enters the sravakayana is not able to (or will not inevitably) enter Mahayana and attain Buddhahood?
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: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
With that said, why did you answer:Queequeg wrote: Yes, I disagree. Even the Arhat, who rests in a phantom city for the time being, treads the Buddhayana, unbeknownst to her.
to the Nagarjuna quote?Queequeg wrote:Pratyekabuddahood ≠ Buddhahood.
Relatedly how does a pratyekabuddha arise without a Buddha given what you described above?
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
You seem to misunderstand something I wrote but can't figure it out from your post.marting wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:58 amWith that said, why did you answer:Queequeg wrote: Yes, I disagree. Even the Arhat, who rests in a phantom city for the time being, treads the Buddhayana, unbeknownst to her.
to the Nagarjuna quote?Queequeg wrote:Pratyekabuddahood ≠ Buddhahood.
Relatedly how does a pratyekabuddha arise without a Buddha given what you described above?
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: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
I think I follow: that the three would not be treading the path of Buddhayana without the Buddha? Just wanted to double check.
With the ekayana perspective can the three paths arise without the Buddha?
(Maybe the hang-up is that I'm just trying to understand the subject better. I'm not arguing.)
With the ekayana perspective can the three paths arise without the Buddha?
(Maybe the hang-up is that I'm just trying to understand the subject better. I'm not arguing.)
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Right, the message of the Lotus seems to be that the Buddha teaches three paths to prepare beings for the Buddhayana. Without Buddha, there are no paths at all. Buddha is considered eternal, so the paths are eternal.marting wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:30 am I think I follow: that the three would not be treading the path of Buddhayana without the Buddha? Just wanted to double check.
With the ekayana perspective can the three paths arise without the Buddha?
(Maybe the hang-up is that I'm just trying to understand the subject better. I'm not arguing.)
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: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
That is a novel interpretation.Queequeg wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:21 am
Ekayana in the Lotus means that even when the Buddha teaches the the three vehicles he is actually teaching the one Buddhayana. Those on the sravakayana are taught arhatship and are aiming for arhatship; pratyekabuddhayana are aiming for pratyekabuddhahood; bodhisattvayana are taught a particular ideal of Buddhahood culminating after 3 eons of practice and they aim for that particular conception of Buddhahood. The actual goal of the Ekayana is not known within these paths. The Buddha is preparing them all to receive the Buddhayana. The Buddhayana is inconceivable to anyone within the three vehicles, even the bodhisattvayana.
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
I see, now you have retreated from your previous statement of certitude to "seems to be."Queequeg wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:12 pmRight, the message of the Lotus seems to be that the Buddha teaches three paths to prepare beings for the Buddhayana.marting wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:30 am I think I follow: that the three would not be treading the path of Buddhayana without the Buddha? Just wanted to double check.
With the ekayana perspective can the three paths arise without the Buddha?
(Maybe the hang-up is that I'm just trying to understand the subject better. I'm not arguing.)
You are referring to the rūpakāya? If so, this is just not so. With respect to this assertion, the Buddha states in the PP in 100,000 lines:The Buddha is considered eternal, so the paths are eternal.
If matter…is a phenomena that is permanent, stable, eternal and unchanging, this Mahāyāna Dharma would not be able to overwhelm the world with its devas, humans, asuras and gandharvas. Because matter…is a phenomena that is impermanent, unstable, transient and changing, this Mahāyāna Dharma is able to overwhelm the world with its devas, humans, asuras and gandharvas.
BTW, some Buddhas, like Sikhin, never ordain a monastic Sangha. So, just how are all paths eternal?
Re: Monastic Tibetan Buddhists Fear Death More
Ah, thanks. What is your take on Nagarjuna and his quote from earlier:Queequeg wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:12 pmRight, the message of the Lotus seems to be that the Buddha teaches three paths to prepare beings for the Buddhayana. Without Buddha, there are no paths at all. Buddha is considered eternal, so the paths are eternal.marting wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:30 am I think I follow: that the three would not be treading the path of Buddhayana without the Buddha? Just wanted to double check.
With the ekayana perspective can the three paths arise without the Buddha?
(Maybe the hang-up is that I'm just trying to understand the subject better. I'm not arguing.)
"If the perfect buddha does not arise and the śrāvakas vanish,
even so, the wisdom of the pratyekabuddhas will arise without support"