Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Forum for discussion of East Asian Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Caoimhghín »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:43 pm The point of the tetralemma is not to make assertions. All you done here is now make four equally faulty identity propositions "a rock is a; is not a; is both a and not a; and is neither a nor not a." This is just not how the tetralemma is used in Buddhist texts by anyone. The tetralemma, used properly, is a structured negation.
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 Buddhas' dharma

(T1564.23c16 Āryanāgārjunasya Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Ātmaparīkṣā)

Ven Zhiyi probably read this positive tetralemma from Ven Nāgārjuna.
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)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:04 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:43 pm The point of the tetralemma is not to make assertions. All you done here is now make four equally faulty identity propositions "a rock is a; is not a; is both a and not a; and is neither a nor not a." This is just not how the tetralemma is used in Buddhist texts by anyone. The tetralemma, used properly, is a structured negation.
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 Buddhas' dharma

(T1564.23c16 Āryanāgārjunasya Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Ātmaparīkṣā)

Ven Zhiyi probably read this positive tetralemma from Ven Nāgārjuna.
That is not a tetralemma. It is a list of perspectives the.Buddha has taught in very specific contexts.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Caoimhghín »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:08 am
Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:04 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:43 pm The point of the tetralemma is not to make assertions. All you done here is now make four equally faulty identity propositions "a rock is a; is not a; is both a and not a; and is neither a nor not a." This is just not how the tetralemma is used in Buddhist texts by anyone. The tetralemma, used properly, is a structured negation.
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 Buddhas' dharma

(T1564.23c16 Āryanāgārjunasya Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Ātmaparīkṣā)

Ven Zhiyi probably read this positive tetralemma from Ven Nāgārjuna.
That is not a tetralemma. It is a list of perspectives the.Buddha has taught in very specific contexts.
No, it's four lemmata. You can't just pretend something isn't what it is.

You need to argue your points.
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)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:09 am
Malcolm wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:08 am
Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:04 am
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 Buddhas' dharma

(T1564.23c16 Āryanāgārjunasya Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Ātmaparīkṣā)

Ven Zhiyi probably read this positive tetralemma from Ven Nāgārjuna.
That is not a tetralemma. It is a list of perspectives the.Buddha has taught in very specific contexts.
No, it's four lemmata. You can't just pretend something isn't what it is.

You need to argue your points.
No. Those four are not arguments in a proof. That is the point.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Caoimhghín »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:32 am
Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:09 am
Malcolm wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:08 am

That is not a tetralemma. It is a list of perspectives the.Buddha has taught in very specific contexts.
No, it's four lemmata. You can't just pretend something isn't what it is.

You need to argue your points.
No. Those four are not arguments in a proof. That is the point.
You need to demonstrate that.

If you claim that these are a list of perspectives the Buddha has taught in very specific contexts the first step would be saying what those contexts were, and then maybe outlining which edifying results they lead to in their context, if you were feeling particularly generous.

Incidentally, the negative tetralemma is also a list of perspectives the Buddha has taught in very specific contexts. He doesn't teach it to everyone.
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)
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Caoimhghín »

Here's some heresy I found on the internet in defence of the uncaveated positive tetralemma:
An existent can be conventional/conceptual/relative or absolute. For example, the five skandhas are absolute existence. A person is a conventional existence conceptualised on these real skandhas. An objective entity having a unique form established by its intrinsic nature, whose distinctive characteristics is observed by an error free observation of dharma is said to be a real existence.

There are five kinds of existence

What exist in name only, examples are a unihorn, tortoise hair.

What exist as real entity, example is the svabhava (self nature).

What exist conventionally, examples are flowers, house, vehicles, forest etc.

What exist as an assemblage - pudgala of the five skandhas

What exist relatively, example of a long thing (exist relatively) to a short thing.
"All is real when observed by an error free observation of dharmāḥ." <--- the heresy( ¿? ) to be addressed :rolleye: :sage: :spy:

The "positive tetralemma" above, if it is indeed that, can easily be construed (I daresay has and/or is frequently construed?), for right or wrong, to defend the above position.
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)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:39 am
Malcolm wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:32 am
Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:09 am
No, it's four lemmata. You can't just pretend something isn't what it is.

You need to argue your points.
No. Those four are not arguments in a proof. That is the point.
You need to demonstrate that.

If you claim that these are a list of perspectives the Buddha has taught in very specific contexts the first step would be saying what those contexts were, and then maybe outlining which edifying results they lead to in their context, if you were feeling particularly generous.
You can read the commentaries on this point.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Queequeg »

Simply put, Malcolm, this is not an area you have expertise in. You can call people names, insult, shade, etc. but you're exposing the mimit of your knowledge here.
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,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:23 pm Simply put...
It is very clear that BNI is a later addition to the Tien tai school, and is not found in the writings of Zhi Yi.

You certainly have not shown that it can even be inferred from Zhi Yi's writings.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Queequeg »

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,
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Queequeg »

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,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:43 pm FYI

https://northwestern.academia.edu/JianeShi
Yes, thanks. I've read those.

This is the problem:

Among the Chinese Buddhist thinkers, Jingxi Zhanran (711-782) in the Tiantai School is the strongest advocate of insentient beings possessing Buddha-nature. He provides his rationale primarily from the perspective of the all-pervasive quality of Buddha-nature, which he considers synonymous with suchness.
This is where Zhanran goes off course.

Zhiyi’s statements—“ignorance is identical to dharma nature” (wuming ji faxing 無明即法性) and “delusion is identical to
bodhi” (fannao ji puti 煩惱即菩提 )—are good examples of the third category of identity, although he never deals with the issue of insentient things’ Buddha-nature
Backs up my point.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:09 pm This is where Zhanran goes off course.
In your opinion. Thank you.

Duly noted. Please move along.
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,
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Caoimhghín »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:08 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:39 am
Malcolm wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:32 am

No. Those four are not arguments in a proof. That is the point.
You need to demonstrate that.

If you claim that these are a list of perspectives the Buddha has taught in very specific contexts the first step would be saying what those contexts were, and then maybe outlining which edifying results they lead to in their context, if you were feeling particularly generous.
You can read the commentaries on this point.
And they don't really say, tbh. It's like they can't think of four specific times when the Buddha said "all exists" or "all both exists and doesn't" (etc) to edifying effect, but they are enamoured with the idea of the Buddha having taught these various positions, because it is a good way to sweep the weird quasi-Vedantic positive tetralemma under the rug.

Incidentally, in my experience most people don't have access to extensive commentaries on the MMK that aren't modern.

The closest thing is when the Buddha says something to the effect of "I am not at variance with the world. What is accepted by the world is accepted by me", that is how Ven Candrakīrti defends the statement. It is rather weak on terms of pointing out specific times when the Buddha taught each position above to edifying effect.

Can you think of a time when the Buddha said all exists?

 You have the *Jānussoṇyaisarvāstisūtra 生聞一切有經 SA 320 & the Sabbasutta SN 35.23 from the Pāli texts.

Can you think of a time when the Buddha said all is nonexistent?

 This one is just par for the course.

Can you think of a time when the Buddha said "all is both existent and nonexistent?"

 That one sounds more like the ascetic Zhiyi than the ascetic Gautama.

Can you think of a time when the Buddha taught that all neither exists not does not exist?

 This one is basically Vedanta. Brahman is everywhere and nowhere. Nothing is reachable. Everything is ineffable. Ineffable monism, essentially.

非合非散而合而散。非非合非非散。不可一異而一異。
Neither same nor different, yet in a sense same, and in a sense different.
T1911.6b15, Móhēzhǐguān <---- violation of lemmata 3 & 4? :spy:
Last edited by Caoimhghín on Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:38 pm, edited 8 times in total.
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)
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Caoimhghín »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:52 pmIncidentally, in my experience most people don't have access to extensive commentaries on the MMK that aren't modern.
There used to be an easily searchable Ocean of Reasoning (Ven Tsongkhapa) available for-free as a floating PDF online, but that is gone now afaik.

Same with the Ven Candrakīrti commentary I have as a PDF.

The only commentary on the MMK easily available afaik is a revisionist Theravāda one.
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)
PeterC
Posts: 5190
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by PeterC »

I’m struggling to see what the consequence of this doctrine would be if it were true. I’ve never come across stories of rocks attaining enlightenment, or buddhas manifesting to teach the dharma to sand dunes, or sentient beings being reincarnated as bodies of water. What would it actually change about our practice if we considered it to be true?
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Caoimhghín »

PeterC wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:36 pmI’m struggling to see what the consequence of this doctrine would be if it were true. I’ve never come across stories of rocks attaining enlightenment, or buddhas manifesting to teach the dharma to sand dunes, or sentient beings being reincarnated as bodies of water. What would it actually change about our practice if we considered it to be true?
When Ven Dōgen explains it, he says that when mental objects appear in the mind they are the mind.

From there, they are understood to be Buddha-nature, sentience, itself. A rock sitting there not perceived by a mind would not have his argumentation applied to it.

IMO that solves the matter there, but others will probably disagree.

It's basically just standard Yogācāra afaik. Consciousness appearing as objects is still just consciousness.
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)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm »

Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:52 pm
Malcolm wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:08 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:39 am

You need to demonstrate that.

If you claim that these are a list of perspectives the Buddha has taught in very specific contexts the first step would be saying what those contexts were, and then maybe outlining which edifying results they lead to in their context, if you were feeling particularly generous.
You can read the commentaries on this point.
And they don't really say,

sarvaṃ tathyaṃ na vā tathyaṃ tathyaṃ cātathyameva ca|

naivātathyaṃ naiva tathyametadbuddhānuśāsanam



They do. For example, the Akutobhya states:
What is the way of explaining in mundane convention? It is explained here:

Everything is true; untrue; true and untrue;
and neither true nor untrue: that is the Buddha's doctrine.


"Everything is true" because the sense bases such as the eye and so, and the objects such as form and so on, do not contradict the truth of convention (vyavahāra). "[Everything is] untrue" because based on ultimate truth, whatever appears does not exist in that way because its nature is totally unestablished like an illusion. "[Everything is] true and untrue" because of depending on the aspects of the two truths. "[Everything is] neither true nor untrue" because at the time of realization, the yogi does not conceptualize the suchness of all phenomena in all aspects.

Further, "everything is true" is valid because the Bhagavan explains the invariable characteristic of the absence of I and mine as knowable in order to abandon the afflictive obscuration. "[Everything is] untrue" is valid because he describes an agent who hears, reflects, and meditates because there is a characteristic of consciousness that is endowed with a sense of "I have" and a sense of "mine." "[Everything is] true and untrue" is valid with respect to the conventions of the world and the śāstras. "[Everything is] neither true nor untrue" is valid because the ultimate nonarising of all phenomena is the domain of both conceptual and nonconceptual consciousnesses, however, any entities discriminated as false and discriminated as true do not exist that way.

"That is the doctrine of the Buddha" means whatever teaching is introduced by those four steps in order to truly obtain the benefit of sentient beings, that is a teaching by the Bhagavān Buddha.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Caoimhghín »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:02 pm
Coëmgenu wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:52 pm
Malcolm wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:08 pm

You can read the commentaries on this point.
And they don't really say,

sarvaṃ tathyaṃ na vā tathyaṃ tathyaṃ cātathyameva ca|

naivātathyaṃ naiva tathyametadbuddhānuśāsanam



They do. For example, the Akutobhya states:
What is the way of explaining in mundane convention? It is explained here:

Everything is true; untrue; true and untrue;
and neither true nor untrue: that is the Buddha's doctrine.


"Everything is true" because the sense bases such as the eye and so, and the objects such as form and so on, do not contradict the truth of convention (vyavahāra). "[Everything is] untrue" because based on ultimate truth, whatever appears does not exist in that way because its nature is totally unestablished like an illusion. "[Everything is] true and untrue" because of depending on the aspects of the two truths. "[Everything is] neither true nor untrue" because at the time of realization, the yogi does not conceptualize the suchness of all phenomena in all aspects.

Further, "everything is true" is valid because the Bhagavan explains the invariable characteristic of the absence of I and mine as knowable in order to abandon the afflictive obscuration. "[Everything is] untrue" is valid because he describes an agent who hears, reflects, and meditates because there is a characteristic of consciousness that is endowed with a sense of "I have" and a sense of "mine." "[Everything is] true and untrue" is valid with respect to the conventions of the world and the śāstras. "[Everything is] neither true nor untrue" is valid because the ultimate nonarising of all phenomena is the domain of both conceptual and nonconceptual consciousnesses, however, any entities discriminated as false and discriminated as true do not exist that way.

"That is the doctrine of the Buddha" means whatever teaching is introduced by those four steps in order to truly obtain the benefit of sentient beings, that is a teaching by the Bhagavān Buddha.
This just also reminded me that the Madhyamakaśāstra is available for-free online.

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=27732
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)
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Caoimhghín »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:02 pmFurther, "everything is true" is valid because the Bhagavan explains the invariable characteristic of the absence of I and mine as knowable in order to abandon the afflictive obscuration.
All in all, it offers an elegant solution, but if I may nitpick this one point:

The commentary says "everything is true" because the Buddha explains the invariable characteristic of absence.

Is this really an example of "everything is true"? Is the invariance of this characteristic of everything the same thing as everything being "true" in and of itself? And if the invariance is the only thing that is true, when why say "everything" is true?
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)
Locked

Return to “East Asian Buddhism”