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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Coëmgenu » 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.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28491
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » 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.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Coëmgenu » 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
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.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28491
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » 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
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.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Coëmgenu » 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
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.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Coëmgenu » Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:14 am

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.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28491
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » 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
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.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6364
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Queequeg » Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:23 pm

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.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28491
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:01 pm

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.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6364
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Queequeg » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:13 pm

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6364
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Queequeg » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:43 pm

Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28491
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:09 pm

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.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6364
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Queequeg » Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:26 pm

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.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.
-Ayacana Sutta

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Coëmgenu » 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
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 Coëmgenu on Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:38 pm, edited 8 times in total.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Coëmgenu » Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:08 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:52 pm
Incidentally, 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.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

PeterC
Posts: 590
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by PeterC » Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:36 pm

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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Coëmgenu » Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:44 pm

PeterC wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:36 pm
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?
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.
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28491
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » 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
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.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Coëmgenu » Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:14 pm

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
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Coëmgenu » Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:29 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:02 pm
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.
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?
नस्वातो नापिपरतो नद्वाभ्यां नाप्यहेतुतः उत्पन्ना जातु विद्यन्ते भावाः क्वचन केचन
There absolutely are no things, nowhere and none, that arise anew, neither out of themselves, nor out of non-self, nor out of both, nor at random.
सर्वं तथ्यं न वा तथ्यं तथ्यं चातथ्यम् एव च नैवातथ्यं नैव तथ्यम् एतद् बुद्धानुशासनम्
All is so, or all is not so, both so and not so, neither so nor not so. This is the Buddha's teaching.

一切實非實亦實亦非實
非實非非實是名諸佛法

Locked

Return to “East Asian Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests