Lotus Nagarjuna
- Karma Dondrup Tashi
- Posts: 1715
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm
Lotus Nagarjuna
Hi all
This may be a stupid question. The other primordial Buddha thread made me think of this.
I'm interested to learn what the Tiantai, Tendai, Nichiren etc. perspectives are on the original Indian authors like Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti.
But in particular, it hadn't really clicked with me before that the Lotus Sutra and Nagarjuna's MMK may have been composed roughly around the same time.
So what I'm really asking is the extent to which the Lotus Sutra, and the branch arising from it, and, say, the MMK and the schools arising from it, have interacted or have understood each other.
I'm asking because I just re-read the Lotus Sutra after a long time and I'm coming at this from the perspective of Tibetan Prasangika, etc. Fair warning, I am *extremely* deficient in knowledge about East Asian Buddhism.
This may be a stupid question. The other primordial Buddha thread made me think of this.
I'm interested to learn what the Tiantai, Tendai, Nichiren etc. perspectives are on the original Indian authors like Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti.
But in particular, it hadn't really clicked with me before that the Lotus Sutra and Nagarjuna's MMK may have been composed roughly around the same time.
So what I'm really asking is the extent to which the Lotus Sutra, and the branch arising from it, and, say, the MMK and the schools arising from it, have interacted or have understood each other.
I'm asking because I just re-read the Lotus Sutra after a long time and I'm coming at this from the perspective of Tibetan Prasangika, etc. Fair warning, I am *extremely* deficient in knowledge about East Asian Buddhism.
It has been the misfortune (not, as these gentlemen think it, the glory) of this age that everything is to be discussed. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France.
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: Lotus Nagarjuna
This is a bit of a non-answer, since I don't consider myself qualified to give a true definitive answer, since that would require a knowledge of historical Indo-Chinese Buddhist relations, congenial and adverse, that I don't necessarily have vis-a-vis the issue of Nāgārjuna-interpretation specifically. Suffice to say, Early Lotus Buddhism comes out of an Asian milieu called "East Asian Madhyamaka". Some critics of the movement sometimes call it "Madhyamaka realism", but that is not a name, to the best of my knowledge, that the Lotus tradition would ever assign itself, and probably originates in the context the conflicts between Śramaṇa Zhìyǐ, who rejected early Yogācāra-discourses, and Vasubandhu, who is something of a father for mainstream Yogācāra.Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:Hi all
This may be a stupid question. The other primordial Buddha thread made me think of this.
I'm interested to learn what the Tiantai, Tendai, Nichiren etc. perspectives are on the original Indian authors like Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti.
But in particular, it hadn't really clicked with me before that the Lotus Sutra and Nagarjuna's MMK may have been composed roughly around the same time.
So what I'm really asking is the extent to which the Lotus Sutra, and the branch arising from it, and, say, the MMK and the schools arising from it, have interacted or have understood each other.
I'm asking because I just re-read the Lotus Sutra after a long time and I'm coming at this from the perspective of Tibetan Prasangika, etc. Fair warning, I am *extremely* deficient in knowledge about East Asian Buddhism.
If I were to try to do independent research on the topic, since other posters here might also feel they lack historical context to give a truly definitive answer, I would start with Śramaṇa Zhìyǐ's "Three Truths", which deal with Ultimate and Conventional reality, subject matter that he undoubtably was informed on by the discourses of Nāgārjuna. That would be where I would start investigating.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: Lotus Nagarjuna
According to the Mahayana Lotus sutra was taught by the Buddha himself, it is not contemporary with the MMK. Vasubandhu has written a commentary to the Lotus Sutra, and he doesn't regard it a "later composition", it is a teaching of the Buddha for him. (There is translation of Vasubandhu's commentary as a PhD manuscript in Scribd.) Lotus sutra can't be a composition from the time of Nagarjuna, people like Vasubandhu would have known it. Vasubandhu defends Mahayana sutras as the original teaching of Buddha in his commentary on the Mahayana Sutra Alamkara.Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:Hi all
This may be a stupid question. The other primordial Buddha thread made me think of this.
I'm interested to learn what the Tiantai, Tendai, Nichiren etc. perspectives are on the original Indian authors like Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti.
But in particular, it hadn't really clicked with me before that the Lotus Sutra and Nagarjuna's MMK may have been composed roughly around the same time.
So what I'm really asking is the extent to which the Lotus Sutra, and the branch arising from it, and, say, the MMK and the schools arising from it, have interacted or have understood each other.
I'm asking because I just re-read the Lotus Sutra after a long time and I'm coming at this from the perspective of Tibetan Prasangika, etc. Fair warning, I am *extremely* deficient in knowledge about East Asian Buddhism.
There is another work by Vasubandhu in this field, Vyakhya-yukti, where he discusses the teaching of the Dharma in general, (there is partial english translation of Vyakhya-yukti.)
It may be difficult to understand how it happened that there exist some schools that categorically deny the teaching of Mahayana as a teaching of Buddha. It should be possible to understand this, because there is lot of rewriting of history in Europe and the "Western" world, of which most people are quite unaware. But the rewritten history becomes naturally the truth for the masses and for the younger people who have never heard of anything else.
The arising of the Sravakayana itself is rewriting the history of what took place at the time of Buddha. Truth is that Mahayana survived somehow somewhere in India when the Sravakayana rose in power. Mahayana stayed underground, and started becoming public already before the time of Nagarjuna.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
Re: Lotus Nagarjuna
I agree with this post. How to get a handle on this?Coëmgenu wrote:This is a bit of a non-answer, since I don't consider myself qualified to give a true definitive answer, since that would require a knowledge of historical Indo-Chinese Buddhist relations, congenial and adverse, that I don't necessarily have vis-a-vis the issue of Nāgārjuna-interpretation specifically. Suffice to say, Early Lotus Buddhism comes out of an Asian milieu called "East Asian Madhyamaka". Some critics of the movement sometimes call it "Madhyamaka realism", but that is not a name, to the best of my knowledge, that the Lotus tradition would ever assign itself, and probably originates in the context the conflicts between Śramaṇa Zhìyǐ, who rejected early Yogācāra-discourses, and Vasubandhu, who is something of a father for mainstream Yogācāra.Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:Hi all
This may be a stupid question. The other primordial Buddha thread made me think of this.
I'm interested to learn what the Tiantai, Tendai, Nichiren etc. perspectives are on the original Indian authors like Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti.
But in particular, it hadn't really clicked with me before that the Lotus Sutra and Nagarjuna's MMK may have been composed roughly around the same time.
So what I'm really asking is the extent to which the Lotus Sutra, and the branch arising from it, and, say, the MMK and the schools arising from it, have interacted or have understood each other.
I'm asking because I just re-read the Lotus Sutra after a long time and I'm coming at this from the perspective of Tibetan Prasangika, etc. Fair warning, I am *extremely* deficient in knowledge about East Asian Buddhism.
If I were to try to do independent research on the topic, since other posters here might also feel they lack historical context to give a truly definitive answer, I would start with Śramaṇa Zhìyǐ's "Three Truths", which deal with Ultimate and Conventional reality, subject matter that he undoubtably was informed on by the discourses of Nāgārjuna. That would be where I would start investigating.
I would start with the Hakeda translation of The Awakening of Faith. Pay attention to the footnotes/endnotes. This will give you a handgrip on the lingo used in Chinese Madhyamaka with the Sanskrit equivalents. The "three truths" doctrine is legible in this text. It's also inexpensive and easy to find.
To get more specific, take a look at Ng Yu-Kwan's book TienTai Buddhism and Early Madhyamika. This is useful because it gives a textual history describing how Chinese masters such as Zhiyi used and valued Indic texts. (hint: they couldn't read Sanskrit and relied on Chinese translations, which heavily inflects the diction and nuance of their thinking)
Now you are ready for Swanson's book Foundations of TienTai Philosophy. This is the really good stuff. This is not a text you can bang out in an afternoon--budget some time for it.
There are some other directions you can go from here if you are interested.
In my opinion, Zhiyi's position is closer to zhentong than prasangika, fwiw.
Re: Lotus Nagarjuna
According to Zhiyi's direct disciple, Guanding, below is the lineage of Zhiyi's teaching. I think its a good place to start answering your question.Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:Hi all
This may be a stupid question. The other primordial Buddha thread made me think of this.
I'm interested to learn what the Tiantai, Tendai, Nichiren etc. perspectives are on the original Indian authors like Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti.
But in particular, it hadn't really clicked with me before that the Lotus Sutra and Nagarjuna's MMK may have been composed roughly around the same time.
So what I'm really asking is the extent to which the Lotus Sutra, and the branch arising from it, and, say, the MMK and the schools arising from it, have interacted or have understood each other.
I'm asking because I just re-read the Lotus Sutra after a long time and I'm coming at this from the perspective of Tibetan Prasangika, etc. Fair warning, I am *extremely* deficient in knowledge about East Asian Buddhism.
From Mohozhikuan (Tr. Swanson):
You'll notice that the person credited with founding Zhiyi's lineage, Hui-wen "relied on the Ta chih tu lun." This is a commentary on, IIRC, the Larger Prajnaparamita Sutra that was transmitted to China, attributed to Nagarjuna. This text has been incredibly influential in East Asia. DGA referenced Prof. Ng's study. The place of the Ta chih tu lun in Zhiyi's thought is explored in Ng's book.THE LUMINOUS QUIESCENCE of cessation-and-contemplation was unknown in former ages. The wise one [Chih-i] elucidated it during one summer [retreat] from the twenty-sixth day of the fourth month of K’ai-huang 14 (A.D. 594) of the Great Sui dynasty, at the Yü-ch’üan ssu in Ching-chou pouring forth his compassion twice a day. Although his eloquence was boundless, he completed only through [the section on the contemplation of] the objects of [mistaken] views.Thus the Dharma-wheel ceased turning, and he did not expound on the latter sections.
Yet in drawing water from a stream one seeks its source, and scenting a fragrance one traces its origin. The Ta chih tu lun says, “I [the Buddha] practiced without a teacher.” A sutra says, “I [Šakyamuni] received the prophecy [of attaining Buddhahood without a teacher] from Dipamkara.” The Analects says, “One who is born with knowledge is superior; one who acquires it through study is next best.” The [Buddhist Dharma] teachings are vast and sublime; they shine forth spontaneously with the truth of Heaven, [and Chih-i’s understanding of it is] like the blue from an indigo plant.
If a practicer hears of the transmission of the Dharma treasury, he will know its origin. [Šakyamuni], the World Honored One who experienced great awakening, completed his religious practices through countless eons [in previous lives, received prophecy of his future Buddhahood, and was born as a human being in this world]. Then in six years [of ascetic discipline in this life as Šakyamuni] he overcame [mistaken] views and defeated Mara by raising a single finger [while meditating under the Bodhi tree and achieving his great awakening]. [He preached the Buddha Dharma] first at Deer Park, then at Vulture Peak, and finally at Crane Grove [near Šravasti, where he passed away]. He transmitted the Dharma to Mahakašyapa.
[1] Mahakašyapa divided and distributed the [Buddha’s] remains into eight portions, compiled the Tripitaka, and transmitted the Dharma to Ãnanda.
[2] Ãnanda entered the Wind Samadhi while in the middle of the [Ganges] River and divided his body into four parts, and transmitted the Dharma to Šanavasa.
[3] Šanavasa made the ambrosia [of the Dharma] rain down from his hands and manifested five hundred teachings, and transmitted the Dharma to Upagupta.
[4] Upagupta attained the third fruit [of the non-returner] while still a layman and attained the fourth fruit [of the arhat] upon receiving the precepts, and transmitted the Dharma to Dh£rtaka.
[5] Dhrtaka had [already] attained the first fruit [of stream-enterer] when he ascended the ordination platform, and became an arhat upon completion of the ordination ceremony. He transmitted the Dharma to Miccaka.
[6] Miccaka transmitted [the Dharma] to Buddhanandi.
[7] Buddhanandi transmitted [the Dharma] to Buddhamitra.
[8] Buddhamitra conferred the triple refuge [in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha] to a king after defeating a numerologist [in debate], and transmitted the Dharma to the bhiksu Paršva.
[9] The bhiksu [Paršva] emerged from the womb with his hair already white. Light emerged from his palm and he took up a sutra. He transmitted the Dharma to Punyayašas.
[10] Punyayašas debated and won over Ašvaghosa [through the exhibition of spiritual powers such as light emerging from his hand], and shaved his head and made him a disciple.
[11] Ašvaghosa composed a piece called the Rastrapala that musically expressed [the truths of] transience, suffering, and emptiness, so that those who heard it were awakened to the [Buddhist] path. He transmitted the Dharma to Kapimala.
[12] Kapimala wrote a treatise on selfessness (anatman), and wherever this treatise was disseminated, false views were extinguished. The Dharma was transmitted to Nagarjuna.
[13] [As for Nagarjuna “arjuna” refers to the tree under which his physical body was born, and “Naga” refers to [the creature which, according to legend, led Nagarjuna to a palace in the depths of the sea and presented him with the Buddhist scriptures, which led to] his attainment of the Dharma body. The Dharma was transmitted to Deva.
[14] [Kana]deva gouged out the divine eye [of a statue of Mahešvara], and then [in turn] offered [his own fleshly eye to an incarnation of Mahešvara, and another grew in its place until he offered] ten thousand fleshly eyes. The Dharma was transmitted to Rahula[ta].
[15] Rahula[ta] comprehended [the contents of] The Book of Demon Names and thus defeated the non-Buddhist [Brahman(s)], and transmitted the Dharma to Sanghanandi.
[16] Sanghanandi taught a verse to test an arhat, and transmitted the Dharma to Sangayašata.
[17] Saagayašata was on his daily rounds by the sea when he saw a palace, and there he taught a verse; the Dharma was then transmitted to Kumarata.
[18] Kumarata [had such a marvelous memory that when he] saw ten thousand horsemen he could remember the color of [each] horse, [each] rider’s name, and [could even] differentiate their clothing. The Dharma was [then] transmitted to Jayata.
[19] Jayata created a fiery pit for [a monk] who had committed serious transgressions, and caused him to enter [the pit] in order to do penance; the pit became a pond and the sins were extinguished.
[20] The Dharma was then transmitted to [Vasu]bandhu and then the Dharma was transmitted to Manorhita.
[21] Manorhita divided [the land] into two parts [north and south] at the Ganges River, and he himself taught those in one part.
[22] The Dharma was then transmitted to Haklenayašas and then to Simha.
[23] Simha was put to the sword by [order of] the [evil] king of Damila, and when the sword cut [off his head], milk flowed forth [instead of blood].
Thus the treasury of the Dharma was transmitted, first to Mahakašyapa and finally to Simha, to twenty-three persons. Madhyantika and Šanavasa [received the transmission] simultaneously, so actually there were twenty-four persons.
These masters were all [heirs to] the prophesies of the Golden Mouth [of the Buddha]; they were noble people, able to benefit many.
In the past there was a king who decided not to build a stable near a temple, but rather built the stable near a slaughterhouse [so that the animals therein would be influenced accordingly]. How much more will human beings be influenced for the good from encountering noble [influences], and how can we not benefit [from this encounter]!
Again, there was a Brahman who was selling skulls, in some of which a rod could be passed [fully] through the holes, in some only half through, and in some not at all. [Someone] built a stupa and performed memorial services for the sake of those that a rod could pass through, and as a result [the builder] attained rebirth in heaven. The essence of hearing the Dharma can be compared to this virtue; the Buddha has transmitted the treasury of the Dharma for the sake of such benefit.
In this [treatise on] cessation-and-contemplation, T’ien-t’ai Chih-che [Chih-i] explains the teachings [or, “approaches to Dharma”] that he has practiced in his own heart and mind When Chih-i was born, light filled the room and double pupils appeared in his eyes. He practiced the Lotus Sutra repentances and articulated dharanis [and realized emptiness on Mount Ta-su under the tutelage of Hui-ssu]. Then in place of his Dharma-master [Hui ssu] he lectured on the golden-lettered Prajñaparamita Sutra. The two dynasties of the Ch’en (557–589) and the Sui (589–618) honored him as the “imperial teacher.” He passed into quiescence in a meditative position, having attained the [fifth and highest] stage of “the five [preliminary] levels”.
Therefore the Lotus Sutra says, “The offering of the seven treasures given for each person in four hundred myriads of millions (koti) of billions (nayuta) of countries, and magically transforming them so that they attain the six supranormal powers is not equal to a hundred thousand millionth part of the appropriate joy experienced by a person [over the good of others] for the first time.” How much more so for the attainment of the fifth level [of the five preliminary levels attained by Chih-i]! The Lotus Sutra also says, “This [person who preaches the Lotus Sutra] is a messenger of the Tathagata, a servant of the Tathagata who performs the deeds of the Tathagata.” The Mahaparinirvana Sutra speaks of “a bodhisattva on the first stage.” [Thus the level of Chih-i’s attainment was not insignificant.]
Chih-i’s teacher was Nan-yüeh [Hui-ssu]. Nan-yüeh’s meritorious practices were inconceivable. He did nothing but chant [sutras] for ten years, practiced the Vaipulya [repentance] for seven years and the constantly-sitting [sam„dhi] for three months, and in a moment attained perfect realization. He quickly reached an awareness of both Hinayana and Mahayana teachings.
Nan-yüeh studied under the meditation master Hui-wen, who was without equal in the area of the Yellow River and Huai River during the reign of Kao-tsu [550–559] of the Northern Ch’i dynasty. His teachings were not understood by the people of his day, as [people who] tread the earth and gaze at the sky do not know the [earth’s] depth nor the [sky’s] height. Hui-wen exclusively relied on the Ta chih tu lun for his mental discipline. This treatise was taught by Nagarjuna, the thirteenth in the line of the transmission of the treasury of the Dharma [as explained above]. In his Treatise on Contemplating Thoughts Chih-i says, “I entrust myself to the teacher Nagarjuna.” Thus we know that Nagarjuna was the highest patriarch [and founder of the T’ien-t’ai lineage].
A skeptic may say, “[The method of] the Middle Treatise is to clear away, while cessation-and-contemplation is constructive. How can they be considered the same?” However, it should be known that there are about seventy Indian commentators [on Nagarjuna’s Mulamadhyamaka-karika]; we should not affirm only that of Ch’ing-mu [which emphasizes the negativistic side of Nagarjuna’s teachings] and reject the other commentators. The Middle Treatise [itself] says,
All things that arise through causes and conditions,
I explain as emptiness,
Again, this is a conventional designation.
Again, this is the meaning of the Middle Way.
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: Lotus Nagarjuna
had to deal with this for years...
I was brought up not lie to yourself.
i was taught like this by me old man..."You can lie to me , you can lie to anyone but you never can lie to your doctor, your lawyer or yourself"
So my life i see as a product of The Buddha Guiding me ..even through my sojourn in the Christian myth thing....
We need to understand it all from now ..the present moment in history and how it evolves and stands up to a society that is highly educated...
take it from there and ask yourself "does Lotus Buddhism the way Nichiren Shonin shaped it.....work for you and do you think it will lead to eradicating your Karma and lead you to Buddhahood in this degenerative age that is at least 1500 years into the nightmare of it all...the last 500 years are dramatically degenerative and delusions are very strong in Buddhism right now.
The whole point of Nichiren Shonin suffering the way He did and not taking the offers the government offered Him if He slacked off....show us how and what we are up against...
it's easy to go to a gakki meeting and fluff the whole thing off.i totally get that and don't attend them anymore for it hurts , it really hurts..thats part and parcel to the degenerative age and what is there to stop your liberation...
have fun...it's a nightmare...your all well above my brain grade and i'm sure you get what i just said and truly believe.
d
I was brought up not lie to yourself.
i was taught like this by me old man..."You can lie to me , you can lie to anyone but you never can lie to your doctor, your lawyer or yourself"
So my life i see as a product of The Buddha Guiding me ..even through my sojourn in the Christian myth thing....
We need to understand it all from now ..the present moment in history and how it evolves and stands up to a society that is highly educated...
take it from there and ask yourself "does Lotus Buddhism the way Nichiren Shonin shaped it.....work for you and do you think it will lead to eradicating your Karma and lead you to Buddhahood in this degenerative age that is at least 1500 years into the nightmare of it all...the last 500 years are dramatically degenerative and delusions are very strong in Buddhism right now.
The whole point of Nichiren Shonin suffering the way He did and not taking the offers the government offered Him if He slacked off....show us how and what we are up against...
it's easy to go to a gakki meeting and fluff the whole thing off.i totally get that and don't attend them anymore for it hurts , it really hurts..thats part and parcel to the degenerative age and what is there to stop your liberation...
have fun...it's a nightmare...your all well above my brain grade and i'm sure you get what i just said and truly believe.
d
- Karma Dondrup Tashi
- Posts: 1715
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm
Re: Lotus Nagarjuna
Tyvm everybody
It has been the misfortune (not, as these gentlemen think it, the glory) of this age that everything is to be discussed. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France.
- Karma Dondrup Tashi
- Posts: 1715
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm
Re: Lotus Nagarjuna
Understood, thank you.Aemilius wrote:According to the Mahayana Lotus sutra was taught by the Buddha himself, it is not contemporary with the MMK. Vasubandhu has written a commentary to the Lotus Sutra, and he doesn't regard it a "later composition", it is a teaching of the Buddha for him. (There is translation of Vasubandhu's commentary as a PhD manuscript in Scribd.) Lotus sutra can't be a composition from the time of Nagarjuna, people like Vasubandhu would have known it. Vasubandhu defends Mahayana sutras as the original teaching of Buddha in his commentary on the Mahayana Sutra Alamkara.
There is another work by Vasubandhu in this field, Vyakhya-yukti, where he discusses the teaching of the Dharma in general, (there is partial english translation of Vyakhya-yukti.)
It may be difficult to understand how it happened that there exist some schools that categorically deny the teaching of Mahayana as a teaching of Buddha. It should be possible to understand this, because there is lot of rewriting of history in Europe and the "Western" world, of which most people are quite unaware. But the rewritten history becomes naturally the truth for the masses and for the younger people who have never heard of anything else.
The arising of the Sravakayana itself is rewriting the history of what took place at the time of Buddha. Truth is that Mahayana survived somehow somewhere in India when the Sravakayana rose in power. Mahayana stayed underground, and started becoming public already before the time of Nagarjuna.
It has been the misfortune (not, as these gentlemen think it, the glory) of this age that everything is to be discussed. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France.
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: Lotus Nagarjuna
The Lotus Sutra is a very old Maháyánasútra, but dates from 200BCE, in its present-day form, at the very earliest. Now does this mean the Buddha did or did not preach it? Inconclusive. Point is: this sútra entered the written canon at so-and-so a time, an contains the Buddhavacana that was remembered by so-and-so elder, and his teacher, and his teacher, and so on, up until before the death of the Bhagaván.Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:Understood, thank you.Aemilius wrote:According to the Mahayana Lotus sutra was taught by the Buddha himself, it is not contemporary with the MMK. Vasubandhu has written a commentary to the Lotus Sutra, and he doesn't regard it a "later composition", it is a teaching of the Buddha for him. (There is translation of Vasubandhu's commentary as a PhD manuscript in Scribd.) Lotus sutra can't be a composition from the time of Nagarjuna, people like Vasubandhu would have known it. Vasubandhu defends Mahayana sutras as the original teaching of Buddha in his commentary on the Mahayana Sutra Alamkara.
There is another work by Vasubandhu in this field, Vyakhya-yukti, where he discusses the teaching of the Dharma in general, (there is partial english translation of Vyakhya-yukti.)
It may be difficult to understand how it happened that there exist some schools that categorically deny the teaching of Mahayana as a teaching of Buddha. It should be possible to understand this, because there is lot of rewriting of history in Europe and the "Western" world, of which most people are quite unaware. But the rewritten history becomes naturally the truth for the masses and for the younger people who have never heard of anything else.
The arising of the Sravakayana itself is rewriting the history of what took place at the time of Buddha. Truth is that Mahayana survived somehow somewhere in India when the Sravakayana rose in power. Mahayana stayed underground, and started becoming public already before the time of Nagarjuna.
Is it exactly the words in exactly the order that the Buddha himself used? Who knows? Certainly not me.
IMO, the internal bulk of the sútra (chapters 15-17 approx) was expounded (to whoever received the sútra) by the Sambhogakáya, speaking as the Dharmakáya, presenting as the Nirmáṇakáya, in a miraculous instance of teaching that utterly unifies the Trikáya (as it unifies the yána into the ekayána), but that is just IMO.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: Lotus Nagarjuna
The world that we perceive is mind, it is a collection of our mental habits. Modern world is different than the past world 2000 or 3000 years ago. It is substantially different, because our minds are different. We project our present consciousness to the past eras. That is natural and inevitable.
In my view bodhisattvas existed at the time of Buddha, they existed long before him.
There are many different samadhis. I think that Shakyamuni abided in the samadhis that are described in Mahayana sutras, like the samadhi that is described in the White Lotus sutra.
In my view bodhisattvas existed at the time of Buddha, they existed long before him.
There are many different samadhis. I think that Shakyamuni abided in the samadhis that are described in Mahayana sutras, like the samadhi that is described in the White Lotus sutra.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)