Is dependant origination eternal?

[Carlita]

Ive read The Lotus Sutra when I had practice Nichiren Buddhism. I want to get the Diamond and Heart in hand but havent got around to it. Im reading In The Buddha's Words.

I think The Lotus mentions that The Buddha "comes back" when The Dharma is spoken. Kind of like the Ceremony in the Air when everyone came to listen to him talk. Id have to go over it again. Each sutra has a different tone and emphasis.

I think its really uncomfortable to hear "lights out." I think thats what The Buddha was addressing. We like this world so much that to think we would have nothing is hard to fathom. When he went into homelessness, The Buddha gave away and gave up mostly everything. Like dying to attachments. Thats basically the same but after so many years of living thwt way in this life, The Buddha finally didnt attach even to food and drink. When he got older, he was telling I think Shariputa how he wanted his Dharma to be taught. Its not an easy teaching to understand but so far I read, thats the general gist. Some sutras more savior-oriented others more mystical. Guess it depends.

[Sherab]

I think its really uncomfortable to hear "lights out." I think thats what The Buddha was addressing. ..

This is a wrong view.

“What are these three (wrong) views? They are (1) the view of cessation, which means the ultimate end; (2)the view of extinction, which is equated to nirvāṇa; (3) the view that nirvāṇa is a void, which means that nirvāṇa is the ultimate quiet nothingness. Śāriputra, in this way these three views fetter, hold, and impress [sentient beings].

[Wayfarer]

Thank you. Citation?

Buddhism DOES NOT reject eternalism per se. It only rejects eternalism insofar as it pertains to a thing/mind/field that is permanent and unchanging. So things like Brahman, an eternal soul and a Creator God are rejected.

Not only that, Buddhism also rejects nihilism insofar as it pertains to a thing/mind/field that is not a continuum, i.e., it arises and then ceases completely.

Buddhist ontology is placed squarely within these two constraints and is short-handed as the avoiding of the two extremes of existence and non-existence. Dependent arising is therefore to be understood as solely operating within this constraint of avoiding the extreme of existence and non-existence.

I am in agreement with that analysis.

[Sherab]

Thank you. Citation?

http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra14.html

I am assuming you were referring to my reply to Carlita

[Simon E.]

I think its really uncomfortable to hear "lights out." I think thats what The Buddha was addressing. ..

This is a wrong view.

“What are these three (wrong) views? They are (1) the view of cessation, which means the ultimate end; (2)the view of extinction, which is equated to nirvāṇa; (3) the view that nirvāṇa is a void, which means that nirvāṇa is the ultimate quiet nothingness. Śāriputra, in this way these three views fetter, hold, and impress [sentient beings].

You do I am sure, realise that quoting from the Pali Canon has only a limited amount of purchase on a Mahayana/Vajrayana forum? Yes, i'm sure you do.

I mention this only for the benefit of the as yet uncommitted

[Sherab]

I think its really uncomfortable to hear "lights out." I think thats what The Buddha was addressing. ..

This is a wrong view.

“What are these three (wrong) views? They are (1) the view of cessation, which means the ultimate end; (2)the view of extinction, which is equated to nirvāṇa; (3) the view that nirvāṇa is a void, which means that nirvāṇa is the ultimate quiet nothingness. Śāriputra, in this way these three views fetter, hold, and impress [sentient beings].

You do I am sure, realise that quoting from the Pali Canon has only a limited amount of purchase on a Mahayana/Vajrayana forum? Yes, i'm sure you do.

I mention this only for the benefit of the as yet uncommitted

You did not look at the link that was provided because if you did, you would not commented as such. Besides, I don't see anything wrong with quoting from Pali canon even on a Mahayana forum. The Pali canon after all is still Buddha Dharma.

[Carlita]

I think its really uncomfortable to hear "lights out." I think thats what The Buddha was addressing. ..

This is a wrong view.

“What are these three (wrong) views? They are (1) the view of cessation, which means the ultimate end; (2)the view of extinction, which is equated to nirvāṇa; (3) the view that nirvāṇa is a void, which means that nirvāṇa is the ultimate quiet nothingness. Śāriputra, in this way these three views fetter, hold, and impress [sentient beings].

I don't see how your quote is different than my statement.

Here is something else to think of.

22. "And whoever, Ananda, should die on such a pilgrimage with his heart established in faith, at the breaking up of the body, after death, will be reborn in a realm of heavenly happiness."

“The beautiful chariots of kings wear out,
This body too undergoes decay.
But the Dhamma of the good does not decay:
So the good proclaim along with the good.”

(Samyutta Nikaya)

"This, monks, is how mindfulness of death is developed & pursued so that it is of great fruit & great benefit, gains a footing in the Deathless, and has the Deathless as its final end." ~AN 6.20

As for defining death specifically of the mind, the closest I know is that who/what exists when there is no attachment to anything and anyone in life?

Unless The Buddha becomes a spirit or something similar, if The Buddha died to non-existence/100% non-attachment, why wouldn't we?

[Carlita]

I think its really uncomfortable to hear "lights out." I think thats what The Buddha was addressing. ..

This is a wrong view.

“What are these three (wrong) views? They are (1) the view of cessation, which means the ultimate end; (2)the view of extinction, which is equated to nirvāṇa; (3) the view that nirvāṇa is a void, which means that nirvāṇa is the ultimate quiet nothingness. Śāriputra, in this way these three views fetter, hold, and impress [sentient beings].

I don't see how your quote is different than my statement.

Here is something else to think of.

22. "And whoever, Ananda, should die on such a pilgrimage with his heart established in faith, at the breaking up of the body, after death, will be reborn in a realm of heavenly happiness."

“The beautiful chariots of kings wear out,
This body too undergoes decay.
But the Dhamma of the good does not decay:
So the good proclaim along with the good.”

(Samyutta Nikaya)

"This, monks, is how mindfulness of death is developed & pursued so that it is of great fruit & great benefit, gains a footing in the Deathless, and has the Deathless as its final end." ~AN 6.20

As for defining death specifically of the mind, the closest I know is that who/what exists when there is no attachment to anything and anyone in life?

Unless The Buddha becomes a spirit or something similar, if The Buddha died to non-existence/100% non-attachment, why wouldn't we?

Oh. Here is something of interest. The Ancient City SN 12:65 (It talks about the cessation of consciousness (and body, age, death,and birth) is the cessation of suffering. When there is a cessation of suffering, there is no need to reborn. Where would one go, if not spirit, if there were no longer consciousness and body to be reborn?

[Sherab]

I think its really uncomfortable to hear "lights out." I think thats what The Buddha was addressing. ..

This is a wrong view.

“What are these three (wrong) views? They are (1) the view of cessation, which means the ultimate end; (2)the view of extinction, which is equated to nirvāṇa; (3) the view that nirvāṇa is a void, which means that nirvāṇa is the ultimate quiet nothingness. Śāriputra, in this way these three views fetter, hold, and impress [sentient beings].

I don't see how your quote is different than my statement.

If you are certain that your view is NOT equivalent to the wrong views stated, then no problem.

[Carlita]

This is a wrong view.

“What are these three (wrong) views? They are (1) the view of cessation, which means the ultimate end; (2)the view of extinction, which is equated to nirvāṇa; (3) the view that nirvāṇa is a void, which means that nirvāṇa is the ultimate quiet nothingness. Śāriputra, in this way these three views fetter, hold, and impress [sentient beings].

I don't see how your quote is different than my statement.

If you are certain that your view is NOT equivalent to the wrong views stated, then no problem.

The Buddha's view isn't wrong view. I don't think in rights and wrongs. Makes me personally judgemental; so, I don't see where I'm wrong with the sutras... Only that you disagree how I expressed the same thing in my former posts with the list of sutras reflecting my points.

We can talk about that instead of rights and wrongs.

[dude]

Yes everything is evetything but everything is empty. Emptiness is form. Form is. Emptiness.

[mechashivaz]

I don't see how your quote is different than my statement.

If you are certain that your view is NOT equivalent to the wrong views stated, then no problem.

The Buddha's view isn't wrong view. I don't think in rights and wrongs. Makes me personally judgemental; so, I don't see where I'm wrong with the sutras... Only that you disagree how I expressed the same thing in my former posts with the list of sutras reflecting my points.

We can talk about that instead of rights and wrongs.

You're tripping over your own words. Buddha's view isn't wrong but you don't think in rights and wrongs? When it comes to view you should be judgmental, or rather, analytically discriminating; establishing proper view is first step of The Noble Eightfold Path, and annihilation has been refuted by Buddha and Buddhism ad nauseam.

[Sherab]

The Buddha's view isn't wrong view. I don't think in rights and wrongs. Makes me personally judgemental; so, I don't see where I'm wrong with the sutras... Only that you disagree how I expressed the same thing in my former posts with the list of sutras reflecting my points.

We can talk about that instead of rights and wrongs.

I don't understand what you are saying in your post above.

The wrong views of
(1) the view of cessation, which means the ultimate end;
(2)the view of extinction, which is equated to nirvāṇa;
(3) the view that nirvāṇa is a void, which means that nirvāṇa is the ultimate quiet nothingness;
all mean one thing, namely, that once a Buddha has died as you put it, he is no longer functional.

So if you hold the view that a Buddha is no longer functional after he dies, I will have to disagree with you. If you do not hold that view, then we are in agreement.

[mechashivaz]

Yes everything is evetything but everything is empty. Emptiness is form. Form is. Emptiness.

Very cliché and doesn't address anything specific in this thread. Sorry to the mod who had to field my previous post for the link.

[Carlita]

If you are certain that your view is NOT equivalent to the wrong views stated, then no problem.

The Buddha's view isn't wrong view. I don't think in rights and wrongs. Makes me personally judgemental; so, I don't see where I'm wrong with the sutras... Only that you disagree how I expressed the same thing in my former posts with the list of sutras reflecting my points.

We can talk about that instead of rights and wrongs.

You're tripping over your own words. Buddha's view isn't wrong but you don't think in rights and wrongs? When it comes to view you should be judgmental, or rather, analytically discriminating; establishing proper view is first step of The Noble Eightfold Path, and annihilation has been refuted by Buddha and Buddhism ad nauseam.

The Dharma is a fact regardless if I see it right or wrong For Me. Facts arent dependant on opinions to exist. Its not right for everyone else; its not wrong for everyone. Its just facts. Suffering exist regardless of our morals. I just dont see right or wrong (judge whether something is bad or good) only beneficial or not.

I dont judge other people's morals only my own.

Its embedded in American culture to think black and white. Not everyone sees life that way regardless of their culture and language. Its maturity in openmindedness.

My whole point in my OP reply is: mahayana sutras are not dilluted pali sutras. They are co-related. Neither right or wrong. Different view points, different time periods new and older, different tones in writing, and different authors. I have my opinion about theravada (pali sutras). Outside of that, I dont see the issue.

Sticking to the topic not my personal morals

[DGA]

Some sutras more savior-oriented others more mystical. Guess it depends.

Which sutras would you describe as savior-oriented? Which ones are more mystical, in your view?

[Carlita]

Some sutras more savior-oriented others more mystical. Guess it depends.

Which sutras would you describe as savior-oriented? Which ones are more mystical, in your view?

The Lotus Sutra is more savior-oriented.
The dharmapada is more mystical
Tibetan texts are mystical.
A lot of the sutras are more abstract, I guess, than other sutras.

I wont compare. Just making a statement nothing more.