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.
Locked
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Aug 19, 2018 5:03 am

There might be a difference between pratītyasamutpādaḥ 因緣法 & pratītyasamutpannāṃ 緣生法 as it relates to which "one" of them "is" emptiness.

But maybe I am talking nonsense.
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
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6129
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Queequeg » Sun Aug 19, 2018 3:31 pm

Some objections are irrelevant.

I'll get around to what I think are substantive objections when I have time.
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

I think each human being has things to find out in his own life that are inescapable. They’ll find them out the easy way or the hard way, or whatever.
-Jerry Garcia

Yuren
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:39 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Yuren » Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:27 pm

The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana has the following passage, which I believe is very relevant to this discussion:
In its very origin suchness is of itself endowed with sublime attributes. It manifests the highest wisdom which shines throughout the world, it has true knowledge and a mind resting simply in its own being. It is eternal, blissful, its own self-being and the purest simplicity; it is invigorating, immutable, free... Because it possesses all these attributes and is deprived of nothing, it is designated both as the Womb of Tathagata and the Dharma Body of Tathagata.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:44 pm

Yuren wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:27 pm
The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana has the following passage, which I believe is very relevant to this discussion:
In its very origin suchness is of itself endowed with sublime attributes. It manifests the highest wisdom which shines throughout the world, it has true knowledge and a mind resting simply in its own being. It is eternal, blissful, its own self-being and the purest simplicity; it is invigorating, immutable, free... Because it possesses all these attributes and is deprived of nothing, it is designated both as the Womb of Tathagata and the Dharma Body of Tathagata.
This is also Chinese apocrypha, though.
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: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:00 pm

Yuren wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:27 pm
The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana has the following passage, which I believe is very relevant to this discussion:
In its very origin suchness is of itself endowed with sublime attributes. It manifests the highest wisdom which shines throughout the world, it has true knowledge and a mind resting simply in its own being. It is eternal, blissful, its own self-being and the purest simplicity; it is invigorating, immutable, free... Because it possesses all these attributes and is deprived of nothing, it is designated both as the Womb of Tathagata and the Dharma Body of Tathagata.
in general, tathāgatagarbha is identified as the dharmakāya encased in afflictions. This is not novel at all.
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: 1701
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:39 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:00 pm
Yuren wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:27 pm
The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana has the following passage, which I believe is very relevant to this discussion:
In its very origin suchness is of itself endowed with sublime attributes. It manifests the highest wisdom which shines throughout the world, it has true knowledge and a mind resting simply in its own being. It is eternal, blissful, its own self-being and the purest simplicity; it is invigorating, immutable, free... Because it possesses all these attributes and is deprived of nothing, it is designated both as the Womb of Tathagata and the Dharma Body of Tathagata.
in general, tathāgatagarbha is identified as the dharmakāya encased in afflictions. This is not novel at all.
I think the italics shines throughout the world was being interpreted as the dharmakāya encased in "the world/loka", as in an insentient dharmakāya, or at least one shining through insentience. But I do not want to make too many assertions about what Yuren meant. I'm not him. That's just how I took it.
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: 1701
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:42 pm

There is another precedent for the Buddhahood of Insentien[ce], but instead of coming from India, it comes from Theravāda modernism:



In case we do not want to watch the whole video, an interesting quote that sums up his position (IMO) is
The difference between a Buddha and a rock is that a Buddha has metabolism.
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: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:47 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:42 pm
There is another precedent for the Buddhahood of Insentien[ce], but instead of coming from India, it comes from Theravāda modernism:
Lot of Theravadin materialists out there these days, thanks to Buddhadasa.
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
Sherab
Posts: 1217
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Sherab » Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:50 pm

Sherab wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:35 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:20 pm
Sherab wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:58 pm

My questions are irrelevant because sunyata is not the same as dependent arising?
Your questions are irrelevant because they do not address the distinction between a sentient being (sattva) and and insensible thing (acetana).
The questions are relevant if sunyata is the same as dependent arising.

Why? Because dependent arising is the reason why there is the phenomena of sentient beings and inanimate things. If you disagree with this, please explain why you disagree.
Malcolm, I shall assume that your silence means that you are unable to disagree with my statement above. If so, then since for your suchness is sunyata and since sunyata is dependent arising (assumed by your above-mentioned silence), please respond if you can to my earlier questions reproduced below for your convenience:

If by suchness, you meant dependent arising, then your statement above implies that both inanimate things and sentient beings are dependently arisen. No problem here.

But when you say that the difference between inanimate things and sentient beings is that sentient beings are permeated with consciousness, are you saying that consciousness is not dependently arisen? If yes, then how does consciousness exist? Beyond suchness?

If you say that consciousness is dependently arisen, then is that dependent arising process distinct from the dependent arising process for inanimate things? If you say they are not distinct, then what is consciousness can become inanimate through the same dependent arising process and what is inanimate can become conscious through the same dependent arising process. Is this your position?

If you say that the dependent arising process is distinct, then the realm of phenomena necessarily is a duality of the inanimate and the conscious. Is this your position?


By answering the above questions, readers can then decide whether your arguments on the distinction between a sentient being and an insensible thing make sense or not. As it stands, your arguments appear to reflect an internally inconsistent or incoherent position on sentient being and insensible thing.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:18 am

Sherab wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:50 pm
Sherab wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:35 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:20 pm


Your questions are irrelevant because they do not address the distinction between a sentient being (sattva) and and insensible thing (acetana).
The questions are relevant if sunyata is the same as dependent arising.

Why? Because dependent arising is the reason why there is the phenomena of sentient beings and inanimate things. If you disagree with this, please explain why you disagree.
Malcolm, I shall assume that your silence means that you are unable to disagree with my statement above. If so, then since for your suchness is sunyata and since sunyata is dependent arising (assumed by your above-mentioned silence), please respond if you can to my earlier questions reproduced below for your convenience:

If by suchness, you meant dependent arising, then your statement above implies that both inanimate things and sentient beings are dependently arisen. No problem here.

But when you say that the difference between inanimate things and sentient beings is that sentient beings are permeated with consciousness, are you saying that consciousness is not dependently arisen? If yes, then how does consciousness exist? Beyond suchness?

If you say that consciousness is dependently arisen, then is that dependent arising process distinct from the dependent arising process for inanimate things? If you say they are not distinct, then what is consciousness can become inanimate through the same dependent arising process and what is inanimate can become conscious through the same dependent arising process. Is this your position?

If you say that the dependent arising process is distinct, then the realm of phenomena necessarily is a duality of the inanimate and the conscious. Is this your position?


By answering the above questions, readers can then decide whether your arguments on the distinction between a sentient being and an insensible thing make sense or not. As it stands, your arguments appear to reflect an internally inconsistent or incoherent position on sentient being and insensible thing.
No, this not the case. And your questions are still irrelevant. They do not address any substantive topic I have raised.
Last edited by Malcolm on Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

Yuren
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 1:39 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Yuren » Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:31 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:39 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:00 pm
Yuren wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:27 pm
The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana has the following passage, which I believe is very relevant to this discussion:

in general, tathāgatagarbha is identified as the dharmakāya encased in afflictions. This is not novel at all.
I think the italics shines throughout the world was being interpreted as the dharmakāya encased in "the world/loka", as in an insentient dharmakāya, or at least one shining through insentience. But I do not want to make too many assertions about what Yuren meant. I'm not him. That's just how I took it.
You interpreted it perfectly. That was exactly the intention behind the italics.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:34 am

Yuren wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:31 am
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:39 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:00 pm


in general, tathāgatagarbha is identified as the dharmakāya encased in afflictions. This is not novel at all.
I think the italics shines throughout the world was being interpreted as the dharmakāya encased in "the world/loka", as in an insentient dharmakāya, or at least one shining through insentience. But I do not want to make too many assertions about what Yuren meant. I'm not him. That's just how I took it.
You interpreted it perfectly. That was exactly the intention behind the italics.
The question isn’t your intention, the question is the intention of the text you are citing.
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: 6129
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Queequeg » Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:18 pm

Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:59 pm
Rocks can be emanations of Buddha but rocks do not possess Buddha nature because they do not possess minds, thus they cannot be enlightened.
What is the difference between an emanation and its source? That sounds arbitrary and contrived, unless we're positing a source, and that doesn't work.

In any event, this statement highlights the different ways that terms are used, which as I've argued from the beginning, is really what this is about. What is an emanation? What is referred to by Buddha Nature? What is meant by Mind? Are there any categorically right answers? There are contextually right answers, but not more.

To have a productive conversation we have to first agree on the principle that meaning and words are not intrinsically one to one pairs. We would need to acknowledge that throughout Buddhist history, words have been repurposed to address cognitive hangups ("Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in. Great for solving problems after it creates the problems." -Modest Mouse). The Buddha started this by redefining words like arya and dharma. Buddhists have taken similar liberties with language since. It also requires a friendly and open mind to try and understand the other. Anyone who has traveled to a place where they don't speak the language I think understands what I'm talking about.

Here, we're talking about two broad and deep Buddhist traditions that broke off and evolved separately in response to the needs of different groups of people who speak different languages and have different cultures. Insisting a word can have only have one meaning in this context evinces a lack of flexibility and is doomed to go no where.
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

I think each human being has things to find out in his own life that are inescapable. They’ll find them out the easy way or the hard way, or whatever.
-Jerry Garcia

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:34 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:18 pm
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:59 pm
Rocks can be emanations of Buddha but rocks do not possess Buddha nature because they do not possess minds, thus they cannot be enlightened.
What is the difference between an emanation and its source?
The sun and its rays. The rays depend on the sun, the sun does not depend on its rays.
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
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:39 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:18 pm


Here, we're talking about two broad and deep Buddhist traditions that broke off and evolved separately in response to the needs of different groups of people who speak different languages and have different cultures. Insisting a word can have only have one meaning in this context evinces a lack of flexibility and is doomed to go no where.
Insisting that rocks literally possess buddhadhātu, tathāgatagarbha, etc., because they also, like sentient beings, are permeated by suchness is a major fail. It has nothing to do with cultural needs, and arguing from cultural needs makes for very poorly Dharmology.
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: 6129
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Queequeg » Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:24 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:34 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:18 pm
Tsongkhapafan wrote:
Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:59 pm
Rocks can be emanations of Buddha but rocks do not possess Buddha nature because they do not possess minds, thus they cannot be enlightened.
What is the difference between an emanation and its source?
The sun and its rays. The rays depend on the sun, the sun does not depend on its rays.
This posits a source distinct from its manifestations.

That's intellectually awkward.
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

I think each human being has things to find out in his own life that are inescapable. They’ll find them out the easy way or the hard way, or whatever.
-Jerry Garcia

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 6129
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Queequeg » Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:28 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:39 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:18 pm


Here, we're talking about two broad and deep Buddhist traditions that broke off and evolved separately in response to the needs of different groups of people who speak different languages and have different cultures. Insisting a word can have only have one meaning in this context evinces a lack of flexibility and is doomed to go no where.
Insisting that rocks literally possess buddhadhātu, tathāgatagarbha, etc., because they also, like sentient beings, are permeated by suchness is a major fail. It has nothing to do with cultural needs, and arguing from cultural needs makes for very poorly Dharmology.
Not permeated. They are suchness. Are you positing that suchness is something distinct from the thing that exhibits suchness? This is not just an idle critique. It bears on the description of the Buddha as distinct from its emanations, like a sun and its rays.

With regard to cultural needs, see Anders' posts above, for example.
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

I think each human being has things to find out in his own life that are inescapable. They’ll find them out the easy way or the hard way, or whatever.
-Jerry Garcia

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:31 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:24 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:34 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:18 pm


What is the difference between an emanation and its source?
The sun and its rays. The rays depend on the sun, the sun does not depend on its rays.
This posits a source distinct from its manifestations.

That's intellectually awkward.
In the realm of convention, there is nothing awkward about it at all. A impression depends on a seal, but a seal does not depend on an impression. Ultimately, sources and manifestations do not survive analysis, but this does not prevent us from drinking water from wells.
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: 6129
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Queequeg » Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:54 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:31 pm
In the realm of convention
Sigh. This is what I've been saying all along. You can invoke convention, but no one else can. Got it.
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

I think each human being has things to find out in his own life that are inescapable. They’ll find them out the easy way or the hard way, or whatever.
-Jerry Garcia

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28278
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Buddhahood of Insentient Beings Exclusively East-Asian?

Post by Malcolm » Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:36 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:28 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:39 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:18 pm


Here, we're talking about two broad and deep Buddhist traditions that broke off and evolved separately in response to the needs of different groups of people who speak different languages and have different cultures. Insisting a word can have only have one meaning in this context evinces a lack of flexibility and is doomed to go no where.
Insisting that rocks literally possess buddhadhātu, tathāgatagarbha, etc., because they also, like sentient beings, are permeated by suchness is a major fail.
Not permeated. They are suchness. Are you positing that suchness is something distinct from the thing that exhibits suchness? This is not just an idle critique.
Your statement suffers from the problem of not distinguishing dharmin and dharmatā. While one cannot claim that dharmin and dharmatā, in this case a rock and its suchness, are absolutely different, neither can one claim they are identical.

The Buddha discusses this problem in detail in the Samdhinirmocana Sūtra, in Chapter Three. One must distinguish between the ultimate and the compounded, but this does not mean they have no relation, like a sun and its rays. As the Buddha says in the Samdhinirmocana, the ultimate is the general characteristic (samanyalakṣana) of the relative.

However, it is a category error to assert that the ultimate is the specific characteristic (svalakṣana) of a given relative entity. But even worse, if you assert the identity proposition "rocks are suchness," you are asserting that a compounded thing, a rock, is ultimate. That makes you a realist.

The Buddha asserts that stating an absolutely identity or difference between the ultimate and the relative are both problematical. He concludes this chapter by stating:

The characteristic of compounded entities and the ultimate
is the characteristic of being neither the same nor different;
those who conceive sameness and difference
are improperly oriented.


On the other hand, the Buddha states nowhere that making conventional distinctions between dharmin and dharmatā is similarly fraught. In fact, as you know, Nāgārjuna points out that it is a great fault not to recognize the distinction between the two truths.
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

Locked

Return to “East Asian Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests