I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post Reply
User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28301
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Malcolm » Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:37 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:01 pm
The doctrine that the Buddha has afflictions is a little misleading.
Taken literally, it is a ridiculous fallacy.
The Buddha is discernible to us only as the enlightening function. The Buddha appears only in response to afflictions. The Buddha is the perfect liberation of afflictions and nothing more can actually be said of the Buddha without acknowledging that is just more upaya in response to our need to conceptualize the Buddha. We therefore say the Buddha is the complement of afflictions and can't be distinguished from afflictions. Further, if there are afflictions then there is Buddha response. As such, Buddha is said to be a part of the affliction-liberation complex. When this complex is defined in terms of Buddha, we say the Buddha includes the afflictions. When defined in terms of deluded being, we say the deluded being includes Buddha.
This is very intellectual. It is just a reiteration of the MMK's nondifferentiation of samara and nirvana.
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: 6153
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Queequeg » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:00 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:37 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:01 pm
The doctrine that the Buddha has afflictions is a little misleading.
Taken literally, it is a ridiculous fallacy.
The Buddha is discernible to us only as the enlightening function. The Buddha appears only in response to afflictions. The Buddha is the perfect liberation of afflictions and nothing more can actually be said of the Buddha without acknowledging that is just more upaya in response to our need to conceptualize the Buddha. We therefore say the Buddha is the complement of afflictions and can't be distinguished from afflictions. Further, if there are afflictions then there is Buddha response. As such, Buddha is said to be a part of the affliction-liberation complex. When this complex is defined in terms of Buddha, we say the Buddha includes the afflictions. When defined in terms of deluded being, we say the deluded being includes Buddha.
This is very intellectual. It is just a reiteration of the MMK's nondifferentiation of samara and nirvana.
Sigh. :roll:

Congratulations. You're the winner!
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
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Grigoris » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:38 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:29 pm


You think a Buddha has afflictions? Because, according to what Mark wrote there, the Buddha is afflicted, just like you and I. But more to the point, he is wrapped up in a Buddhist dogma so he never talks too people, only at them.
I think you'll find he said the complete opposite: That a Buddha never has, or has had afflictions.

I think that to a Buddha notions of afflicted/without afflictions, impure/pure, etc are totally irrelevant. These are concepts for us worldly beings to waste our time with.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
rory
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 8:08 am
Location: SouthEast USA

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by rory » Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:15 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:33 am
illarraza wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:23 am
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:54 am


Urns
Let's set the record straight then. The Buddha has eradicated all afflictions, it is axiomatic. Only those whose understanding of the Dharma is completely perverse deny this.
That's why you hate the Lotus Sutra and its votaries...Because they overturn everything you believe and were taught for the last forty years. As the Infinite Meanings Sutra teaches, "In these last forty years, I have not yet revealed the truth "(Myo Ho Ren Ge Kyo). With this clear statement, he overturns his teachings of the last forty years and he overturns your pie in the sky Buddha who has eradicated all afflictions. A Buddha who has eradicated all afflictions, is an Expedient teaching, including the teachings of the first Fourteen Chapters of the Lotus Sutra. A corollary to this is that the Buddha first attained Enlightenment for the first time under the Tree when in fact He attained Enlightenment in the infinite past.
Mark, this is pure religious fanaticism. You poor man. You are so wrapped up in Buddhist dogma you cannot even have a real conversation with anyone.
Malcolm this is purely normal Nichiren Buddhism, you are the one who is seemingly without faith, especially coming here and trying to downgrade Chih-I and the primacy of the Lotus Sutra, frankly it says a lot about you as a practitioner; none of it good.
gassho
Rory
Namu Kanzeon Bosatsu
Chih-I:
The Tai-ching states "the women in the realms of Mara, Sakra and Brahma all neither abandoned ( their old) bodies nor received (new) bodies. They all received buddhahood with their current bodies (genshin)" Thus these verses state that the dharma nature is like a great ocean. No right or wrong is preached (within it) Ordinary people and sages are equal, without superiority or inferiority
Paul, Groner "The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture"eds. Tanabe p. 58
https://www.tendai-usa.org/

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28301
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Malcolm » Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:12 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:38 pm

I think you'll find he said the complete opposite: That a Buddha never has, or has had afflictions.
Umm no, read the thread again.
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: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:23 pm

DGA wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:43 am
illarraza wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:15 am
The Lotus Sutra teaches that this IS the Eternal Pure land. The deluded like Malcolm see Samsara as a World of suffering. Like wise they think the Buddha has eradicated afflictions. The Buddha too gets hungry and eats. Likewise the Buddha has an urge to defecate and does.
Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by the Eternal Pure Land? Specifically: I'm trying to understand your perspective, but I don't see the connection between your claims on the here-and-now as the Eternal Pure Land and the need for Shakyamuni to eat and digest on one side, and your rejection of the idea that the present is also samsaric and that afflictions exist.
I do not claim to speak for Mark, but if I may add some unsoliscited observation.

Compare the above to the below:

The nature and characteristics of the path of suffering – they misunderstand this path of suffering, and saṃsāra remains expansive. This is misunderstanding the dharmakāya as the path of suffering. There is no separate dharmakāya apart from the path of suffering, like mistaking south as north, there is no separate south. If one realizes saṃsāra, then it is the dharmakāya. Thus it is said the nature and characteristics of the path of suffering are the nature and characteristics of the dharmakāya.
(Ven Zhìyǐ, 法华玄义, CBETA, T 33 no 1716)


This passage from 法华玄义 is essentially Madhyamaka, but I think that it and/or passages like it are sometimes used to underpin interpretations like the illarraza's above.

However, it only says the dharmakāya is misaprehended as the path of suffering. That quite as radical as some go with this Madhyamaka-derived nonduality.
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: 28301
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Malcolm » Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:28 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:23 pm
DGA wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:43 am
illarraza wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:15 am
The Lotus Sutra teaches that this IS the Eternal Pure land. The deluded like Malcolm see Samsara as a World of suffering. Like wise they think the Buddha has eradicated afflictions. The Buddha too gets hungry and eats. Likewise the Buddha has an urge to defecate and does.
Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by the Eternal Pure Land? Specifically: I'm trying to understand your perspective, but I don't see the connection between your claims on the here-and-now as the Eternal Pure Land and the need for Shakyamuni to eat and digest on one side, and your rejection of the idea that the present is also samsaric and that afflictions exist.
I do not claim to speak for Mark, but if I may add some unsoliscited observation.

Compare the above to the below:

The nature and characteristics of the path of suffering – they misunderstand this path of suffering, and saṃsāra remains expansive. This is misunderstanding the dharmakāya as the path of suffering. There is no separate dharmakāya apart from the path of suffering, like mistaking south as north, there is no separate south. If one realizes saṃsāra, then it is the dharmakāya. Thus it is said the nature and characteristics of the path of suffering are the nature and characteristics of the dharmakāya.
(Ven Zhìyǐ, 法华玄义, CBETA, T 33 no 1716)


This passage from 法华玄义 is essentially Madhyamaka, but I think that it and/or passages like it are sometimes used to underpin interpretations like the illarraza's above.

However, it only says the dharmakāya is misaprehended as the path of suffering. That quite as radical as some go with this Madhyamaka-derived nonduality.
This is not terribly radical. Nāgārjuna states in the Sixty:

As for samsara and nirvana, these two do not exist;
however, thorough knowledge of samsara is nirvana.
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: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Coëmgenu » Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:02 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:28 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:23 pm
DGA wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:43 am


Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by the Eternal Pure Land? Specifically: I'm trying to understand your perspective, but I don't see the connection between your claims on the here-and-now as the Eternal Pure Land and the need for Shakyamuni to eat and digest on one side, and your rejection of the idea that the present is also samsaric and that afflictions exist.
I do not claim to speak for Mark, but if I may add some unsoliscited observation.

Compare the above to the below:

The nature and characteristics of the path of suffering – they misunderstand this path of suffering, and saṃsāra remains expansive. This is misunderstanding the dharmakāya as the path of suffering. There is no separate dharmakāya apart from the path of suffering, like mistaking south as north, there is no separate south. If one realizes saṃsāra, then it is the dharmakāya. Thus it is said the nature and characteristics of the path of suffering are the nature and characteristics of the dharmakāya.
(Ven Zhìyǐ, 法华玄义, CBETA, T 33 no 1716)


This passage from 法华玄义 is essentially Madhyamaka, but I think that it and/or passages like it are sometimes used to underpin interpretations like the illarraza's above.

However, it only says the dharmakāya is misaprehended as the path of suffering. That quite as radical as some go with this Madhyamaka-derived nonduality.
This is not terribly radical. Nāgārjuna states in the Sixty:

As for samsara and nirvana, these two do not exist;
however, thorough knowledge of samsara is nirvana.
The post was supposed to read "That's not quite as radical as some[...]". Alas. Typage.
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

ItsRaining
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by ItsRaining » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:54 am

Aryjna wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:03 am
ItsRaining wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:54 am

It's the Entering the Dharma Realm section of the Avatamsaka/Flower Adorement Sutra, there are translations by the City of Ten Thousand Buddhas and Thomas Cleary. The CTTB one is on their website here:

http://www.cttbusa.org/avatamsaka/avatamsaka39.asp
Thanks, yes there is a lot more information for Gandavyuha, but not for Ghanavyuha.
Ah sorry, those titles looked so similar!

ItsRaining
Posts: 236
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by ItsRaining » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:57 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:42 am
ItsRaining wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:54 am
Aryjna wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:29 pm

Has the Ghanavyuha sutra been translated? I can't find much about it online.
It's the Entering the Dharma Realm section of the Avatamsaka/Flower Adorement Sutra, there are translations by the City of Ten Thousand Buddhas and Thomas Cleary. The CTTB one is on their website here:

http://www.cttbusa.org/avatamsaka/avatamsaka39.asp
This is a common error, one I have made myself. The Ghanavyuha and the Ghandavyhua are two entirely separate sūtras. The one you are referring too is the latter.
What does Ghanavyuha mean? Is it the Secret Adorement Sutra?

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 17682
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Grigoris » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:26 am

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:12 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:38 pm

I think you'll find he said the complete opposite: That a Buddha never has, or has had afflictions.
Umm no, read the thread again.
Sorry, you are quite right, I only skimmed the thread to deal with a report.

But if a Buddha has defilements then they are just another worldly ignorant being. In which case: why would I take refuge in the specific worldly being and not my neighbour, for example?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

jake
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:13 pm

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by jake » Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:49 pm

rory wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:15 pm
illarraza wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:23 am

As the Infinite Meanings Sutra teaches, "In these last forty years, I have not yet revealed the truth "(Myo Ho Ren Ge Kyo). With this clear statement, he overturns his teachings of the last forty years and he overturns your pie in the sky Buddha who has eradicated all afflictions. A Buddha who has eradicated all afflictions, is an Expedient teaching, including the teachings of the first Fourteen Chapters of the Lotus Sutra. A corollary to this is that the Buddha first attained Enlightenment for the first time under the Tree when in fact He attained Enlightenment in the infinite past.
...this is purely normal Nichiren Buddhism...

Rory
Hi Rory,

Can you point me in the direction of some Goshos or perhaps explain how this is a normal Nichiren Buddhist position? I've never seen any such thing said in Tendai.

Thanks!
“The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone."

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

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Coëmgenu » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

So are the latencies of Ven Zhiyi, such as the latent fire "inside" of bamboo at all times, is this fire still considered "fire" despite not manifesting, and functionally not existing for all intensive purposes until it is brought out? Are these latencies understood as manifestations?

According to Ven Zhiyi evil dwells in the Buddha like the latent fire inside of a stalk of bamboo, if the fire is caused to "come out" of the bamboo, then the causes and conditions for fire have come together.

A fully awakened Buddha has only latencies, no manifestations. Like a stalk of bamboo whose internal fires are never "brought out".

How does this interact with the "normal" Nichiren view presented earlier?

To contextualize my earlier quotation, which is one of my "pet" quotations that I post frequently, I will admit:

Furthermore, a single moment of thought in the mind of a common being possesses the ten realms. They completely possess the nature and characteristics of evil karma, yet the nature and characteristics of evil are the nature and characteristics of virtue. It is due to evil that there is virtue. Apart from evil there is no virtue. Turning over evils, there is virtue supporting them, like inside bamboo there being the nature of fire. It is not yet the object of fire, which is why it exists but does not burn. When meeting with conditions the phenomenon comes to exist, and then it can burn things. Evil as the nature of virtue is not yet an existent phenomenon. When it meets with conditions it become an existent phenomenon, and then there can be a turn to evil. It is like bamboo. Fire is emitted and returns, burning the bamboo. In evil there is virtue. When virtue comes to exist it returns, destroying the evil. This is why that which are the nature and characteristics of evil are the nature and characteristics of virtue. A single moment of thought of an ordinary being always possesses the consciousnesses, names and forms of the ten realms. The nature and characteristics of the path of suffering – they misunderstand this path of suffering, and saṃsāra remains expansive. This is misunderstanding the dharmakāya as the path of suffering. There is no separate dharmakāya apart from the path of suffering, like mistaking south as north, there is no separate south. If one realizes saṃsāra, then it is the dharmakāya. Thus it is said the nature and characteristics of the path of suffering are the nature and characteristics of the dharmakāya.

(Ven Zhìyǐ, 法华玄义 [The Dharma Flower's Profound Meaning], CBETA, T 33 no 1716)
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: 28301
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Malcolm » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:04 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm
So are the latencies of Ven Zhiyi, such as the latent fire "inside" of bamboo at all times, is this fire still considered "fire" despite not manifesting, and functionally not existing for all intensive purposes until it is brought out? Are these latencies understood as manifestations?

According to Ven Zhiyi evil dwells in the Buddha like the latent fire inside of a stalk of bamboo, if the fire is caused to "come out" of the bamboo, then the causes and conditions for fire have come together.

A fully awakened Buddha has only latencies, no manifestations. Like a stalk of bamboo whose internal fires are never "brought out".

How does this interact with the "normal" Nichiren view presented earlier?

To contextualize my earlier quotation, which is one of my "pet" quotations that I post frequently, I will admit:

Furthermore, a single moment of thought in the mind of a common being possesses the ten realms. They completely possess the nature and characteristics of evil karma, yet the nature and characteristics of evil are the nature and characteristics of virtue. It is due to evil that there is virtue. Apart from evil there is no virtue. Turning over evils, there is virtue supporting them, like inside bamboo there being the nature of fire. It is not yet the object of fire, which is why it exists but does not burn. When meeting with conditions the phenomenon comes to exist, and then it can burn things. Evil as the nature of virtue is not yet an existent phenomenon. When it meets with conditions it become an existent phenomenon, and then there can be a turn to evil. It is like bamboo. Fire is emitted and returns, burning the bamboo. In evil there is virtue. When virtue comes to exist it returns, destroying the evil. This is why that which are the nature and characteristics of evil are the nature and characteristics of virtue. A single moment of thought of an ordinary being always possesses the consciousnesses, names and forms of the ten realms. The nature and characteristics of the path of suffering – they misunderstand this path of suffering, and saṃsāra remains expansive. This is misunderstanding the dharmakāya as the path of suffering. There is no separate dharmakāya apart from the path of suffering, like mistaking south as north, there is no separate south. If one realizes saṃsāra, then it is the dharmakāya. Thus it is said the nature and characteristics of the path of suffering are the nature and characteristics of the dharmakāya.

(Ven Zhìyǐ, 法华玄义 [The Dharma Flower's Profound Meaning], CBETA, T 33 no 1716)
What the above says pretty clearly is that in a single moment of the mind of a sentient being there are "ten realms," six lokas plus four kinds of āryan beings. It does not say that a buddha possesses traces or latencies. This is a passage illustrating the relative nature of conceptual categories we use to describe various things, i.e., long and short, light and dark, samsara and nirvana, and so on.
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: 28301
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Malcolm » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:05 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:00 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:37 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:01 pm
The doctrine that the Buddha has afflictions is a little misleading.
Taken literally, it is a ridiculous fallacy.
The Buddha is discernible to us only as the enlightening function. The Buddha appears only in response to afflictions. The Buddha is the perfect liberation of afflictions and nothing more can actually be said of the Buddha without acknowledging that is just more upaya in response to our need to conceptualize the Buddha. We therefore say the Buddha is the complement of afflictions and can't be distinguished from afflictions. Further, if there are afflictions then there is Buddha response. As such, Buddha is said to be a part of the affliction-liberation complex. When this complex is defined in terms of Buddha, we say the Buddha includes the afflictions. When defined in terms of deluded being, we say the deluded being includes Buddha.
This is very intellectual. It is just a reiteration of the MMK's nondifferentiation of samara and nirvana.
Sigh. :roll:

Congratulations. You're the winner!
Taken on the face of it, your statement "Buddha includes the afflictions" cannot be taken literally. You're basically making the argument that a buddha defines afflictions through exclusion.
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: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Coëmgenu » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:21 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:04 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm
So are the latencies of Ven Zhiyi, such as the latent fire "inside" of bamboo at all times, is this fire still considered "fire" despite not manifesting, and functionally not existing for all intensive purposes until it is brought out? Are these latencies understood as manifestations?

According to Ven Zhiyi evil dwells in the Buddha like the latent fire inside of a stalk of bamboo, if the fire is caused to "come out" of the bamboo, then the causes and conditions for fire have come together.

A fully awakened Buddha has only latencies, no manifestations. Like a stalk of bamboo whose internal fires are never "brought out".

How does this interact with the "normal" Nichiren view presented earlier?

To contextualize my earlier quotation, which is one of my "pet" quotations that I post frequently, I will admit:

Furthermore, a single moment of thought in the mind of a common being possesses the ten realms. They completely possess the nature and characteristics of evil karma, yet the nature and characteristics of evil are the nature and characteristics of virtue. It is due to evil that there is virtue. Apart from evil there is no virtue. Turning over evils, there is virtue supporting them, like inside bamboo there being the nature of fire. It is not yet the object of fire, which is why it exists but does not burn. When meeting with conditions the phenomenon comes to exist, and then it can burn things. Evil as the nature of virtue is not yet an existent phenomenon. When it meets with conditions it become an existent phenomenon, and then there can be a turn to evil. It is like bamboo. Fire is emitted and returns, burning the bamboo. In evil there is virtue. When virtue comes to exist it returns, destroying the evil. This is why that which are the nature and characteristics of evil are the nature and characteristics of virtue. A single moment of thought of an ordinary being always possesses the consciousnesses, names and forms of the ten realms. The nature and characteristics of the path of suffering – they misunderstand this path of suffering, and saṃsāra remains expansive. This is misunderstanding the dharmakāya as the path of suffering. There is no separate dharmakāya apart from the path of suffering, like mistaking south as north, there is no separate south. If one realizes saṃsāra, then it is the dharmakāya. Thus it is said the nature and characteristics of the path of suffering are the nature and characteristics of the dharmakāya.

(Ven Zhìyǐ, 法华玄义 [The Dharma Flower's Profound Meaning], CBETA, T 33 no 1716)
What the above says pretty clearly is that in a single moment of the mind of a sentient being there are "ten realms," six lokas plus four kinds of āryan beings. It does not say that a buddha possesses traces or latencies. This is a passage illustrating the relative nature of conceptual categories we use to describe various things, i.e., long and short, light and dark, samsara and nirvana, and so on.
All I can say, is, read it one more time, the part I am commenting on is in the beginning, before the talk of dharmakāya & saṃsāra.

like inside bamboo there being the nature of fire. It is not yet the object of fire, which is why it exists but does not burn

The above is relevant to how evil/affliction-in-Buddha is treated in Tiāntāi it seems.
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: 28301
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Malcolm » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:29 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:21 pm


All I can say, is, read it one more time, the part I am commenting on is in the beginning, before the talk of dharmakāya & saṃsāra.

like inside bamboo there being the nature of fire. It is not yet the object of fire, which is why it exists but does not burn

The above is relevant to how evil/affliction-in-Buddha is treated in Tiāntāi it seems.
I don't see it. It is an axiomatic definition that buddhas are free from all traces and all obscurations. There are no conditions under which a buddha can experience anger, for example. This citation does not support your idea.
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: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Coëmgenu » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:35 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:29 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:21 pm


All I can say, is, read it one more time, the part I am commenting on is in the beginning, before the talk of dharmakāya & saṃsāra.

like inside bamboo there being the nature of fire. It is not yet the object of fire, which is why it exists but does not burn

The above is relevant to how evil/affliction-in-Buddha is treated in Tiāntāi it seems.
I don't see it. It is an axiomatic definition that buddhas are free from all traces and all obscurations. There are no conditions under which a buddha can experience anger, for example. This citation does not support your idea.
The fire is evil/affliction. The above is how Ven Zhiyi says the Buddha "is" evil/afflicted/the devil. It is not a straightforward equivalency like some people have been arguing.

The way that some people have been arguing, they would say that:

"like inside bamboo there being the nature of fire. [It is] the object of fire, [...] it exists but [and does] burn [despite paradoxically not burning?]" <--- this is the interpretation that some here have been arguing.
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: 28301
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Malcolm » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:52 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:35 pm

The fire is evil/affliction. The above is how Ven Zhiyi says the Buddha "is" evil/afflicted/the devil. It is not a straightforward equivalency like some people have been arguing.
I understand that the metaphor. There is no mention of buddhas possessing afflictions in that passage. There is only mention of ordinary beings.


The way that some people have been arguing, they would say that:

"like inside bamboo there being the nature of fire. [It is] the object of fire, [...] it exists but [and does] burn [despite paradoxically not burning?]" <--- this is the interpretation that some here have been arguing.

This is what it says:

Turning over evils, there is virtue supporting them, like inside bamboo there being the nature of fire. It is not yet the object of fire, which is why it exists but does not burn. When meeting with conditions the phenomenon comes to exist, and then it can burn things.

It does not reflect the interpretation you are sharing.

For example, there is a passage where Garab Dorje asks, "How will the bonfire of pristine consciousness (jñāna) burn without the fuel of afflictions?" But this does not mean a buddha possesses afflictions. In a buddha, even the fire of pristine consciousness has gone out since there is nothing further for a buddha to purify, to know or to do with respect to a path and all their actions are spontaneous like the rewards that come from possessing a wishful fulfilling gem.

Is this ambiguous interpretation you give coming from the Ziporyn fellow's books?
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: 6153
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: I've been so wrong/pure lands

Post by Queequeg » Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:00 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:05 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:00 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:37 pm


Taken literally, it is a ridiculous fallacy.



This is very intellectual. It is just a reiteration of the MMK's nondifferentiation of samara and nirvana.
Sigh. :roll:

Congratulations. You're the winner!
Taken on the face of it, your statement "Buddha includes the afflictions" cannot be taken literally. You're basically making the argument that a buddha defines afflictions through exclusion.
Another sigh. :roll:
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

Post Reply

Return to “Nichiren”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests