Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14418
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Queequeg »

Coëmgenu wrote:moment.

The "in order to generate faith" part is what Lotus Buddhists may disagree on. To them, this is not necessarily an upāya in the same way.
Yeah. This is not a compelling assertion. 'the Buddha, even as he is explicitly saying 'I'm telling you what's really going on,' is just saying this to ultimately revert to what he said before.' That requires setting aside the literal meaning of the text to go back to where we were at the start.. back to believing that Shakyamuni first attained enlightenment at Gaya.

Accepting the Lotus at face value requires a reinterpretation of the Buddhist canon as Zhiyi taught. As the Sutra explicitly teaches.

If that is an expedient, it's at a different level than Malcolm is suggesting, and it doesn't mean what he says.

This reading of the Lotus as an expedient is not novel. This was a significant part of the debate between Hosso and Tendai, too.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3504
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by narhwal90 »

I have always wondered about the distribution of views wrt the Lotus sutra as truth vs expedience in the wider community. Taking it as expedient seems to me the minimum necessary assumption but that certainly appears heterodox in Nichiren-land.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Caoimhghín »

Queequeg wrote:This reading of the Lotus as an expedient is not novel. This was a significant part of the debate between Hosso and Tendai, too.
But, you have to admit, the knowledge drop involves an interesting combination of the three bodies, and the subsumation of the three of them under the 'conventional name'/'conventional identity' of what is 'conventionally called' the nirmāṇakāya, namely Śākyamuni. This has obvious parallels to the teaching of Śākyamuni-as-dharmakāya, simply because it is a teaching of Śākyamuni-as-dharmakāya, dharmakāya being 'Primordial Buddha', Mahāvairocana, 法身普賢, et al.

The labelling of this as 'provisional' is the only thing in contention here. IMO, at least.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14418
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Queequeg »

Coëmgenu wrote:
Queequeg wrote:This reading of the Lotus as an expedient is not novel. This was a significant part of the debate between Hosso and Tendai, too.
But, you have to admit, the knowledge drop involves an interesting combination of the three bodies, and the subsumation of the three of them under the 'conventional name'/'conventional identity' of what is 'conventionally called' the nirmāṇakāya, namely Śākyamuni. This has obvious parallels to the teaching of Śākyamuni-as-dharmakāya, simply because it is a teaching of Śākyamuni-as-dharmakāya, dharmakāya being 'Primordial Buddha', Mahāvairocana, 法身普賢, et al.

The labelling of this as 'provisional' is the only thing in contention here. IMO, at least.
Uh, what?

One of the drawbacks of grad school is that you forget how to communicate clearly. I'm messing with you. A little.

Edit - sorry, that was late at night and meant as a joke. Don't know if it quite came across in the spirit intended. Can you restate that?
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Caoimhghín »

Queequeg wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:
Queequeg wrote:This reading of the Lotus as an expedient is not novel. This was a significant part of the debate between Hosso and Tendai, too.
But, you have to admit, the knowledge drop involves an interesting combination of the three bodies, and the subsumation of the three of them under the 'conventional name'/'conventional identity' of what is 'conventionally called' the nirmāṇakāya, namely Śākyamuni. This has obvious parallels to the teaching of Śākyamuni-as-dharmakāya, simply because it is a teaching of Śākyamuni-as-dharmakāya, dharmakāya being 'Primordial Buddha', Mahāvairocana, 法身普賢, et al.

The labelling of this as 'provisional' is the only thing in contention here. IMO, at least.
Uh, what?

One of the drawbacks of grad school is that you forget how to communicate clearly. I'm messing with you. A little.

Edit - sorry, that was late at night and meant as a joke. Don't know if it quite came across in the spirit intended. Can you restate that?
Well, to restate: looking at the three-way intersection of Śākyamuni (who is known as nirmāṇakāya in addition to whatever else he may be known as), the five certainties of the saṃbhogakāya that Malcolm outlined (place, teacher, retinue, teaching, time), and the four perfections of the dharmakāya (purity, true self, bliss, permanence), I think that what we see can be described as a 'combination' and a 'subsumption' (which I misspelled as 'subsumation') of the three.

To explain 'combination': the combination is pointed out by Malcolm, although he refers to only the lifespan of the dharmakāya, not all five perfections as I have potentially eccentrically inferred.


To explain 'subsumption' (particularly "under 'conventional name'/'conventional identity'" from above): AFAIK and I am indeed very fallible, it is suggested (and on occasion demanded!) by others far greater than I, in as much as I am exposed to their teachings, as poorly as that is sometimes. After all, was it not Ven Nichiren (this comes off as eccentric, I know, but I figured, if I give living teachers the respect of a 'Ven' in front of their names, don't past teachers deserve the same treatment at least, coherently?) who demanded that other sects 'acknowledge' (and here is where I may be increasingly vague) a dharma of specifically "Śākyamuni as 'true buddha'"?

Śākyamuni is given the qualities and aspects of the saṃbhogakāya and the dharmakāya via the 'combination' earlier, both conventionally manifest as Mahāvairocana (conflating two sources: the 'teacher' of the 5 certainties is Mahāvairocana, Mahāvairocana is also independent of the teaching on the 5 certainties called the 'embodiment' of emptiness and identified with dharmakāya), and he is 'true Buddha', but he is not Mahāvairocana. Hence Śākyamuni subsumes Mahāvairocana as a 'name' for the 'true Buddha', as much as conventional naming and conventional identity goes. It's a rather shallow observation!

It was just meant as a casual trivium, but now it is a long exposition! :oops:
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Caoimhghín »

Coëmgenu wrote:Hence Śākyamuni subsumes Mahāvairocana as a 'name' for the 'true Buddha', as much as conventional naming and conventional identity goes
for all that though, it does nothing to answer the query of the OP in part or in in full, namely why this name and this identification in particular? Why was this important?

I am sure Queequeg has posted materials on this before the in subforum. I don't imagine its the first time this has popped up.

It could simply have something to do with the general 'primacy' of the Lotus Sūtra and paying its presentation of Buddhavacana higher respect, a Buddhavacana in which the name "Mahāvairocana" just happens to not appear?
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 4228
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Minobu »

Coëmgenu wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
Coëmgenu wrote:But, you have to admit, the knowledge drop involves an interesting combination of the three bodies, and the subsumation of the three of them under the 'conventional name'/'conventional identity' of what is 'conventionally called' the nirmāṇakāya, namely Śākyamuni. This has obvious parallels to the teaching of Śākyamuni-as-dharmakāya, simply because it is a teaching of Śākyamuni-as-dharmakāya, dharmakāya being 'Primordial Buddha', Mahāvairocana, 法身普賢, et al.

The labelling of this as 'provisional' is the only thing in contention here. IMO, at least.
Uh, what?

One of the drawbacks of grad school is that you forget how to communicate clearly. I'm messing with you. A little.

Edit - sorry, that was late at night and meant as a joke. Don't know if it quite came across in the spirit intended. Can you restate that?
Well, to restate: looking at the three-way intersection of Śākyamuni (who is known as nirmāṇakāya in addition to whatever else he may be known as), the five certainties of the saṃbhogakāya that Malcolm outlined (place, teacher, retinue, teaching, time), and the four perfections of the dharmakāya (purity, true self, bliss, permanence), I think that what we see can be described as a 'combination' and a 'subsumption' (which I misspelled as 'subsumation') of the three.

To explain 'combination': the combination is pointed out by Malcolm, although he refers to only the lifespan of the dharmakāya, not all five perfections as I have potentially eccentrically inferred.


To explain 'subsumption' (particularly "under 'conventional name'/'conventional identity'" from above): AFAIK and I am indeed very fallible, it is suggested (and on occasion demanded!) by others far greater than I, in as much as I am exposed to their teachings, as poorly as that is sometimes. After all, was it not Ven Nichiren (this comes off as eccentric, I know, but I figured, if I give living teachers the respect of a 'Ven' in front of their names, don't past teachers deserve the same treatment at least, coherently?) who demanded that other sects 'acknowledge' (and here is where I may be increasingly vague) a dharma of specifically "Śākyamuni as 'true buddha'"?

Śākyamuni is given the qualities and aspects of the saṃbhogakāya and the dharmakāya via the 'combination' earlier, both conventionally manifest as Mahāvairocana (conflating two sources: the 'teacher' of the 5 certainties is Mahāvairocana, Mahāvairocana is also independent of the teaching on the 5 certainties called the 'embodiment' of emptiness and identified with dharmakāya), and he is 'true Buddha', but he is not Mahāvairocana. Hence Śākyamuni subsumes Mahāvairocana as a 'name' for the 'true Buddha', as much as conventional naming and conventional identity goes. It's a rather shallow observation!

It was just meant as a casual trivium, but now it is a long exposition! :oops:
this is alright and fine but you just had to...
Ven Nichiren (this comes off as eccentric, I know, but I figured, if I give living teachers the respect of a 'Ven' in front of their names,


so it's Venerable Dai Sensei Nichiren Dai Shonin from now on... :focus:

Well maybe the odd time i could add in Venerable Dai Sensei Master Nichiren Dai Shonin...or would it be better Venerable Master Dai Sensei Nichiren Dai Shonin . :focus:
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Caoimhghín »

Minobu wrote: so it's Venerable Dai Sensei Nichiren Dai Shonin from now on... :focus:

Well maybe the odd time i could add in Venerable Dai Sensei Master Nichiren Dai Shonin...or would it be better Venerable Master Dai Sensei Nichiren Dai Shonin . :focus:
:oops:

I'm still most likely going to continue on saying Ven Nichiren too! :alien:
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14418
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Queequeg »

Coëmgenu wrote:Well, to restate: looking at the three-way intersection of Śākyamuni (who is known as nirmāṇakāya in addition to whatever else he may be known as), the five certainties of the saṃbhogakāya that Malcolm outlined (place, teacher, retinue, teaching, time), and the four perfections of the dharmakāya (purity, true self, bliss, permanence), I think that what we see can be described as a 'combination' and a 'subsumption' (which I misspelled as 'subsumation') of the three.
What we see in the Life Span chapter of the Lotus Sutra is the Buddha stating,
“Listen carefully to the Tathāgata’s secret and transcendent powers. The devas, humans, and asuras in all the worlds all think that the present Buddha, Śākyamuni, left the palace of the Śākyas, sat on the terrace of enlightenment not far from the city of Gayā, and attained highest, complete enlightenment. However, O sons of a virtuous family, immeasurable, limitless, hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of nayutas of kalpas have passed since I actually attained buddhahood."
He also states:
Although I am always here without extinction,
Through the power of skillful means
I manifest extinction and nonextinction.
If there are any sentient beings in other worlds
Who respect and believe in me,
I will also teach them the highest Dharma.
This is Shakyamuni Buddha speaking.
“O sons of a virtuous family! During this interim I explained about the Buddha Dīpaṃkara and others. Furthermore, I also said that they had entered parinirvāṇa. I have explained such things through skillful means.

“O sons of a virtuous family! If any sentient being comes to me, I perceive the dullness or sharpness of his faith and other faculties with my buddhaeye. According to the way I should bring them to the path, I, myself, proclaim different names and lifespans in various places. In each case I have also clearly stated that I would enter parinirvāṇa. Through various skillful means I have explained subtle teachings and have made the sentient beings rejoice."
The reality of the Buddha is non-arising and non-extinction. There is no distinction made here among the three bodies, that its only the Dharma body that is characterized by non-arising and non-extinction - this is Shakyamuni Buddha speaking. He is directly saying, in his Nirmanakaya form, I am permanent. There is no attribution of these characterisitcs onto Shakyamuni, no subsumption. The Lotus Sutra doesn't use the words "Dharmakaya" "Sambhogakay" "Nirmanakaya", but the meaning is there.

Is he called Shakyamuni in another world? No. "I, myself, proclaim different names and lifespans in various places." But in this world, he was born into the Shakya clan and was therefore called the Muni of the Shakya. He was surrounded by beings of particular karmic dispositions and conditions and so he taught them the unique paths out of their thickets of wrong views, a body of teachings which we have as the Buddhist canon.

Its not about Dharmabodies and their names, or Sambhogakayas and their names, or Nirmanakayas and their names. All that is taxonomy. One Buddha, who is not one, nor many, appears according to the needs of the beings before him. He is reality, the reconciliation with which is the end of suffering and the opening of Buddha Wisdom. The Buddha is the enlightening axiom of this world.

This is why the Four Siddhantas are critical for understanding the Buddha. Buddha is nothing other than siddhanta, nothing other than upaya. This is why the particular nirmanakaya matters - The Buddha appeared as Shakyamuni in specific response to the needs and conditions of the beings of this Saha world. What else is really useful? How does any Buddhist teaching make any sense without Shakyamuni?

Identifying Shakyamuni as the Buddha of the three eternal bodies is an inalterable part of reality as beings born on this planet, some 100 generations after Siddhartha Gautama walked this same ground. The Dharma we hear is the echo of his voice.

All this stuff about Dharma bodies and Bliss bodies and Manifest bodies having different names and identities is from this perspective, provisional. What is a Dharma Body without the other bodies to interface with the myriad beings lost in samsara? This is why a disembodied Dharmakaya like Mahavairocana is considered provisional - its idealism. Same with a disembodied sambhogakaya - to propose wisdom without Dharmakaya and without Nirmanakaya - again, its idealism.

The attributes of these discrete bodies are not subsumed into Shakyamuni - they are Shakyamuni.

Now, you can choose to perceive and reify these discrete, disembodied aspects of Buddha. I wish you well on that path.
Śākyamuni is given the qualities and aspects of the saṃbhogakāya and the dharmakāya via the 'combination' earlier, both conventionally manifest as Mahāvairocana (conflating two sources: the 'teacher' of the 5 certainties is Mahāvairocana, Mahāvairocana is also independent of the teaching on the 5 certainties called the 'embodiment' of emptiness and identified with dharmakāya), and he is 'true Buddha', but he is not Mahāvairocana. Hence Śākyamuni subsumes Mahāvairocana as a 'name' for the 'true Buddha', as much as conventional naming and conventional identity goes. It's a rather shallow observation!
Word games. Without Shakyamuni's appearance in India, none of these riddles arise. There is no Mahavairocana. There is no Amitabha, or Rochana, or Aksobhya... All of it is upaya, siddhanta, of Shakyamuni.

"I, myself, proclaim different names and lifespans in various places... Whether the Tathāgata teaches about himself or others, whether he reveals his form or that of others, whether he shows his acts or those of others, everything he says is true, never false."
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Caoimhghín »

Queequeg wrote:Word games.
Please go and meditate on the wisdom of asking someone to elaborate on a very simple point they make which needs no elaboration, then please also, more importantly, meditate on the wisdom of then getting angry and dismissive when they have to explain something very simple in more words than it needs.

Either way, if anyone is so interested I would recommend looking at the aforementioned 5 certainties and 4 perfections.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14418
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Queequeg »

Well, sorry about that, C. Not angry and wasn't trying to be dismissive. Just addressing what I can gather is your argument. When I wish you luck with a particular idea, I do mean that sincerely. I'm skeptical, but I do wish you the best using that idea to frame your views.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14418
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Queequeg »

As a follow up note:

C, you seem to have interpreted the "Word games" comment as directed at you personally. That is not the case.

I do think your prose is difficult to understand, but the "Word games" comment was directed at the substance of your comment. In your comment you appear to describe what amounts a a verbal shell game where meanings are variously ascribed to the particular names of buddhas, or aspects of buddhas, ostensibly to conform to one particular view or another.

As the rest of my comment tries to point out, Shakyamuni as eternal is not an intellectual somersault but the import of the Lotus Sutra text itself. I pointed out that Malcolm suggesting that this message in the Lotus is another upaya in the manner he suggests it is, is not compelling as it is not supported by the text of the sutra, and instead is a complete contradiction.

The Five Certainties, as I can gather, seem to have been a much later development in Indian Buddhist thought. It is, in the very least, awkward to use it to analyze a text that long predates it.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote:As a follow up note:

C, you seem to have interpreted the "Word games" comment as directed at you personally. That is not the case.

I do think your prose is difficult to understand, but the "Word games" comment was directed at the substance of your comment. In your comment you appear to describe what amounts a a verbal shell game where meanings are variously ascribed to the particular names of buddhas, or aspects of buddhas, ostensibly to conform to one particular view or another.

As the rest of my comment tries to point out, Shakyamuni as eternal is not an intellectual somersault but the import of the Lotus Sutra text itself. I pointed out that Malcolm suggesting that this message in the Lotus is another upaya in the manner he suggests it is, is not compelling as it is not supported by the text of the sutra, and instead is a complete contradiction.

The Five Certainties, as I can gather, seem to have been a much later development in Indian Buddhist thought. It is, in the very least, awkward to use it to analyze a text that long predates it.
You are contradicting yourself here. You assume that you can apply someone's traditional exegesis to a text, and discard someone else's traditional exegesis based on some text critical criterion which you merely accept arbitrarily so it won't contradict your prejudices. The five certainties are found within Sūtra.
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Caoimhghín »

Concerning the five certainties, an exposition by the Venerable 41st Sakya Trizin:

In order to help sentient beings, the Buddhas, while remaining in such a state, take on a form that is helpful to the pure disciples, the higher followers. For the benefit of the higher followers, the Buddhas appear in the Sambhogakaya form. Sambhogakaya means the body of enjoyment. The Sambhogakaya is said to have the five certainties: the certainty of place, the certainty of time, the certainty of form, the certainty of teachings, and the certainty of surroundings. Here, the surroundings refer to the followers. The place is not anywhere, but always in the highest Buddha Akanishta, the Buddha Field that is known as Akanishta. Here, there is no time, there is no such thing as birth or death, but it is there all the time, constantly remaining in the form of the Buddha. It does not appear in different forms, but always in the Buddha’s form, the fully enlightened Buddha’s form, adorned with the thirty-two signs and eighty
qualities. And it does not impart different teachings, but always the highest Mahayana teachings. And the
disciples are not ordinary persons but Bodhisattvas, the highest Bodhisattvas, Bodhisattvas who are already on the stage of the ten bhumis. In other words, the Bodhisattvas who have already gone beyond the
worldly path. So it is that the Sambhogakaya has the five certainties.

And then, in order to help ordinary sentient beings, the Buddhas appear in Nirmanakaya form. This is different from the Sambhogakaya, in the sense that when there are worthy followers, the Nirmanakaya
appear. When there are no worthy followers, they do not appear, but enter into Paranirvana. The form is not necessarily in the Buddha's form, in that whenever, wherever, and whatever form is required, the form
will appear that is most beneficial to that particular situation, to that particular circumstance. The Buddhas
will appear in that particular form to help sentient beings. So the historical Sakyamuni Buddha is also
actually a Nirmanakaya. But He's known as an excellent Nirmanakaya because even ordinary persons
saw Him as a Buddha with the thirty-two signs and the eighty qualities and so forth.
(Ven SK XLI, Taking Refuge, 2010)

One might consider akaniṣṭha in light of the Buddha's Pure Land in specifically described in Chapter 16.

One might consider "always" (the time) in light of the Buddha's dwelling in that same chapter
(我常住於此 -->"I constantly dwell in here")

One might consider the teaching in light of Ch 1
(我見燈明佛,  本光瑞如此,  以是知今佛,  欲說法華經。--> "I saw Dēng Míng Buddha, having originally shone auspiciously in this way, because of this I know presently of the Buddha, that he soon will proclaim the lotus sūtra")

One might consider the retinue also in light of Ch 16
(我等住阿惟越致地 --> "we here abide in avaivartika bhūmi").

Lastly, one might consider, on terms of "teacher"/form, Ven SK XLI doesn't even specify the name "Mahāvairocana", making this an easy parallel to draw. They simply state: "always in the Buddha’s form, the fully enlightened Buddha’s form, adorned with the thirty-two signs and eighty
qualities"

I offer a meagre and secondhand assessment, but I don't see it as "contradicting" the notion that Śākyamuni is the "true Buddha" or even "Primordial Buddha". Maybe it does, and I suppose I apologize to the Nichiren practitioners here if that is the case.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14418
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:As a follow up note:

C, you seem to have interpreted the "Word games" comment as directed at you personally. That is not the case.

I do think your prose is difficult to understand, but the "Word games" comment was directed at the substance of your comment. In your comment you appear to describe what amounts a a verbal shell game where meanings are variously ascribed to the particular names of buddhas, or aspects of buddhas, ostensibly to conform to one particular view or another.

As the rest of my comment tries to point out, Shakyamuni as eternal is not an intellectual somersault but the import of the Lotus Sutra text itself. I pointed out that Malcolm suggesting that this message in the Lotus is another upaya in the manner he suggests it is, is not compelling as it is not supported by the text of the sutra, and instead is a complete contradiction.

The Five Certainties, as I can gather, seem to have been a much later development in Indian Buddhist thought. It is, in the very least, awkward to use it to analyze a text that long predates it.
You are contradicting yourself here. You assume that you can apply someone's traditional exegesis to a text, and discard someone else's traditional exegesis based on some text critical criterion which you merely accept arbitrarily so it won't contradict your prejudices. The five certainties are found within Sūtra.
I made two points here that are not contradictory.

1. The sutra itself does not support your contention that Shakyamuni's life span is mere upaya to inspire faith. To arrive at that position one must introduce assumptions not found in or supported by the text.

2. To the extent that the Five Certainties stand for the eternity of Sambhogakaya, but not Nirmanakaya, it is inapplicable here. Again, because the text itself resists conformity. It could equally be said you are precluded from accepting the text because of your prejudice, having to propose a tortured, "it says this but really means this" argument. You have to admit those arguments are very rarely convincing. Those kinds of accusations of prejudice rarely advance a discussion, though they may be true.

If you can definitively demonstrate your view as correct, I am open to it.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14418
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Queequeg »

Coëmgenu wrote:Concerning the five certainties, an exposition by the Venerable 41st Sakya Trizin:

In order to help sentient beings, the Buddhas, while remaining in such a state, take on a form that is helpful to the pure disciples, the higher followers. For the benefit of the higher followers, the Buddhas appear in the Sambhogakaya form. Sambhogakaya means the body of enjoyment. The Sambhogakaya is said to have the five certainties: the certainty of place, the certainty of time, the certainty of form, the certainty of teachings, and the certainty of surroundings. Here, the surroundings refer to the followers. The place is not anywhere, but always in the highest Buddha Akanishta, the Buddha Field that is known as Akanishta. Here, there is no time, there is no such thing as birth or death, but it is there all the time, constantly remaining in the form of the Buddha. It does not appear in different forms, but always in the Buddha’s form, the fully enlightened Buddha’s form, adorned with the thirty-two signs and eighty
qualities. And it does not impart different teachings, but always the highest Mahayana teachings. And the
disciples are not ordinary persons but Bodhisattvas, the highest Bodhisattvas, Bodhisattvas who are already on the stage of the ten bhumis. In other words, the Bodhisattvas who have already gone beyond the
worldly path. So it is that the Sambhogakaya has the five certainties.

And then, in order to help ordinary sentient beings, the Buddhas appear in Nirmanakaya form. This is different from the Sambhogakaya, in the sense that when there are worthy followers, the Nirmanakaya
appear. When there are no worthy followers, they do not appear, but enter into Paranirvana. The form is not necessarily in the Buddha's form, in that whenever, wherever, and whatever form is required, the form
will appear that is most beneficial to that particular situation, to that particular circumstance. The Buddhas
will appear in that particular form to help sentient beings. So the historical Sakyamuni Buddha is also
actually a Nirmanakaya. But He's known as an excellent Nirmanakaya because even ordinary persons
saw Him as a Buddha with the thirty-two signs and the eighty qualities and so forth.
(Ven SK XLI, Taking Refuge, 2010)

One might consider akaniṣṭha in light of the Buddha's Pure Land in specifically described in Chapter 16.

One might consider "always" (the time) in light of the Buddha's dwelling in that same chapter
(我常住於此 -->"I constantly dwell in here")

One might consider the teaching in light of Ch 1
(我見燈明佛,  本光瑞如此,  以是知今佛,  欲說法華經。--> "I saw Dēng Míng Buddha, having originally shone auspiciously in this way, because of this I know presently of the Buddha, that he soon will proclaim the lotus sūtra")

One might consider the retinue also in light of Ch 16
(我等住阿惟越致地 --> "we here abide in avaivartika bhūmi").

Lastly, one might consider, on terms of "teacher"/form, Ven SK XLI doesn't even specify the name "Mahāvairocana", making this an easy parallel to draw. They simply state: "always in the Buddha’s form, the fully enlightened Buddha’s form, adorned with the thirty-two signs and eighty
qualities"

I offer a meagre and secondhand assessment, but I don't see it as "contradicting" the notion that Śākyamuni is the "true Buddha" or even "Primordial Buddha". Maybe it does, and I suppose I apologize to the Nichiren practitioners here if that is the case.
This analysis can certainly be applied. What is poignant is that Shakyamuni's Pure Land is the Saha World. Ordinary beings see it aflame, but is actually tranquil.

***

The trikaya teaching appeared after the Lotus appeared. To the extent that later Lotus proponents labored to find the trikaya in the Lotus, its because they were resolving distinctions that came up later and were then used to analyze the sutras. We use more words to resolve the breaches that words created in the first place.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote:
I made two points here that are not contradictory.

1. The sutra itself does not support your contention that Shakyamuni's life span is mere upaya to inspire faith. To arrive at that position one must introduce assumptions not found in or supported by the text.
Everything is interpretable. Your notion that the text must be taken literally is an assumption you are introducing to the text, which is not supported by the text itself and is directly contradicted by the text:
  • The Buddhas teach the Dharma
    With myriads of uncountable skillful means,
    According to the capacities of sentient beings;
    The inexperienced cannot understand this.
2. To the extent that the Five Certainties stand for the eternity of Sambhogakaya, but not Nirmanakaya, it is inapplicable here. Again, because the text itself resists conformity.
My comment is based on Prthvibandhu's commentary. This is how the sūtra was commonly understood by Indian exegetes. In other words, Śakyamuni, in this sūtra, is attributing to himself the qualities of a sambhogakāya which are commonly understood to the audience of bodhisattvas. Since only eighth through tenth stage bodhisattva are privileged to see the Sambhogakāya in Akaniṣṭha, he is in this passage making a statement about the inseparability of the three kāyas. Further, to understand this passage in question, one must also understand it in reference to the statement about the purity of the Sahaloka in the Vimalakirti-nirdesa sūtra.

There are many ways to unpack a sūtra's meaning — the literal meaning of the words is generally the least useful and interesting.

The text does not "resist" conformity, as you put it. The idea of the three wheels, for example, or that sūtras are to be understood in light of when in Buddha's career he supposedly taught them is actually the basis for your entire exegesis of this sūtra — but that idea is also not supported in the sūtra. Where did the Buddha say, "You can disregard everything I have said in the past?"
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3504
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by narhwal90 »

Wonhyo seems to take the sutra on the basis of a skillful presentation of skillful or at least expedient means. For instance, he interprets both sides of the lifetime argument as skillful means for beings that respond to the respective positions. In his commentary his primary concern is about various one vs three vehicle interpretations and implications. I can't make out his position on the Lotus Sutra being full and complete or not, he seems to argue both sides...
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14418
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Queequeg »

Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
I made two points here that are not contradictory.

1. The sutra itself does not support your contention that Shakyamuni's life span is mere upaya to inspire faith. To arrive at that position one must introduce assumptions not found in or supported by the text.
Everything is interpretable. Your notion that the text must be taken literally is an assumption you are introducing to the text, which is not supported by the text itself and is directly contradicted by the text:
  • The Buddhas teach the Dharma
    With myriads of uncountable skillful means,
    According to the capacities of sentient beings;
    The inexperienced cannot understand this.
You misrepresent my position. Commentaries can be very helpful for opening up and revealing meanings that might not be readily apparent in the literal text. However, there are limits to interpretation. Commentary on a primary text can't contradict the text. It can't say, "The text means East" when the text literally reads, "West." At that point, the commentary and text have parted ways and the commentary can't be called commentary.

Further, I actually agree with you that the Lotus is upaya, from beginning to end. I just don't find the upaya you identify supported by the text. The text cannot be interpreted in any arbitrary manner to say the exact opposite of what it literally says. If those are the rules you follow, then there is no longer any basis of discussion. It doesn't matter how well reasoned and footnoted a commentary is - if it directly contradicts the text, something has to give and generally, the Buddha's words win.
My comment is based on Prthvibandhu's commentary.
I confess, I know nothing of Prthivibandhu beyond what Google tells me. Where can I find it?

The Lotus dates from First c. BCE ~ First c. CE. It was first translated into Chinese in 286 CE. It was again translated in 406 by Kumarajiva (344-414 CE), and this is the most popular version in East Asia. The Lotus was among the most highly regarded sutras in China from its first introduction. Indian commentaries on it would have been avidly sought, and indeed, there are commentaries attributed to Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu in Chinese (whether they are authentic is up for debate).

The views on the Lotus that you presently dispute were taught by Zhiyi (538-597 CE), though he suggests that they were his teacher's.

As best I can gather, Prthivibandhu dates from the 7th c., later than Zhiyi.

This raises a question about when the interpretation you attribute to Prthivibandhu would have first been in circulation in India. To say, this is how the Indians interpreted it, is a rather broad statement that glosses the fact that this appears on its face to be a rather late Indian view on the text. It also glosses the fact that "Indians" were far from monolithic in their views.

All that said, there isn't enough evidence to properly weight your claim.

Its inconclusive.
This is how the sūtra was commonly understood by Indian exegetes. In other words, Śakyamuni, in this sūtra, is attributing to himself the qualities of a sambhogakāya which are commonly understood to the audience of bodhisattvas. Since only eighth through tenth stage bodhisattva are privileged to see the Sambhogakāya in Akaniṣṭha, he is in this passage making a statement about the inseparability of the three kāyas. Further, to understand this passage in question, one must also understand it in reference to the statement about the purity of the Sahaloka in the Vimalakirti-nirdesa sūtra.


I can see the truth in pretty much everything here except the part about attributing qualities of sambhogakaya to himself. If the three bodies are inseparable, then that makes no sense. He doesn't need to attribute - he has those qualities. What he did at the assembly in the air is demonstrate these qualities.

As for only bodhisattvas being able to see this, the first half of the sutra addresses this issue by declaring that everyone is irreversibly on the Buddha path, that everyone, whether they realize it or not, are bodhisattvas, certain to attain Buddhahood without fail, that all are, wittingly or unwittingly, are being led along the path of Buddhahood.
There are many ways to unpack a sūtra's meaning — the literal meaning of the words is generally the least useful and interesting.
That seems like a disposition that would cause one to risk disregarding the profound implications of the text. "The text? Phooey. The commentaries are really where its at!"
The text does not "resist" conformity, as you put it. The idea of the three wheels, for example, or that sūtras are to be understood in light of when in Buddha's career he supposedly taught them is actually the basis for your entire exegesis of this sūtra — but that idea is also not supported in the sūtra. Where did the Buddha say, "You can disregard everything I have said in the past?"
That's not quite right.

The "Three Wheels" comes from the Lotus Sutra.

Kern translates:
"By means of one sole vehicle, to wit, the Buddha-vehicle, Sariputra, do I teach creatures the law; there is no second vehicle, nor a third... Yet, Sariputra, when the Tathagatas, &c., happen to appear at the decay of the epoch, the decay of creatures, the decay besetting sins, the decay of views, or the decay of lifetime, when they appear amid such signs of decay at the disturbance of the epoch; when creatures are much tainted, full of greed and poor in roots of goodness; then, Sariputra, the Tathagatas, &c., use, skillfully, to designate that one and sole Buddha-vehicle y the appellation of the threefold vehicle."
Upaya Chapter (Ch. 2).

And its not because of the period in the Buddha's life that it was taught that the Lotus is revered, though, the sequence of teaching is critical. Its because of the content. When Zhiyi talks about the Fifth period teachings as Perfect and Sudden, it is because of the substance of the teachings, not the particular time of the teaching.

The sequence, though, is important to the Lotus. As the Lotus explains, all the other teachings were to prepare for the teaching of the Lotus; all the other teachings were this Ekayana, the Buddhayana, even though the Buddha called it by various names. All the upaya are Buddhayana. The Sutra states this over and over in various ways, through the various parables, through the whole structure of the text itself.

Among the stories related in the text to make this point that the Lotus is the crowning teaching of the buddhas, it recounts how the Lotus is the last teaching by other buddhas as well, at least those who teach it - not all buddhas teach the Lotus - how the teaching of this Sutra by Shakyamuni follows the previous patterns of its teaching.

As to your final point - who is saying that all the other teachings should be disregarded? Some Nichiren Buddhists may believe that. Not all, by any means. It is unanimous, though, that the Lotus teaches the correct view through which all other teachings should be understood. This is not Nichiren's innovation, or Zhiyi's. This is found in the text of the Lotus Sutra.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Shakyamuni as the Eternal Buddha

Post by Malcolm »

Queequeg wrote:
The Lotus dates from First c. BCE ~ First c. CE.
So, it is not even the Buddha's teaching. Make it all rather moot then.
Locked

Return to “Nichiren”