simultaneity of cause and effect

Post Reply
User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 16814
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by Grigoris » Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:56 pm

Topic locked for clean up of ad hom and metadiscussion. Given I am on my smart phone with no wifi connection, it will be some time before it is reopened.
"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
Virgo
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: The American Colosseum

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by Virgo » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:49 pm

Thread cleaned.

Kevin
ངོ་རང་ཐོག་ཏུ་སྤྲད། །
ཐག་གཅིག་ཐོག་ཏུ་བཅད། །
གདེང་གྲོལ་ཐོག་ཏུ་བཅའ། །

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/videos
http://caretoclick.com/save-the-rainfor ... orestation
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otGs4ZMOyq4

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27522
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by Malcolm » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:40 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:44 pm
Abhidhamma/Abhidharma is derivative of the Sutta/Sutra.
Abhidharma is called "abhi" because it is higher and more advanced. For example, Dzogchen can be classified as part of Abhidharma, and there are texts which do so.
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: 5456
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by Queequeg » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:33 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:40 pm
Queequeg wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:44 pm
Abhidhamma/Abhidharma is derivative of the Sutta/Sutra.
Abhidharma is called "abhi" because it is higher and more advanced. For example, Dzogchen can be classified as part of Abhidharma, and there are texts which do so.
Now that sounds like marketing.

If there is a conflict between Sutta/Sutra and Abhidhamma/Abhidarma, are you telling me the latter is authoritative? The teaching derivative of the Buddha's Pure and Far Reaching Voice, not the Voice itself?
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

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 27522
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by Malcolm » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:15 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:33 pm

If there is a conflict between Sutta/Sutra and Abhidhamma/Abhidarma, are you telling me the latter is authoritative? The teaching derivative of the Buddha's Pure and Far Reaching Voice, not the Voice itself?

You should not conflate Abhidhamma with Abhidharma.
According to tradition, the essence of the Abhidhamma was formulated by the Buddha during the fourth week after his Enlightenment.[1] Seven years later he is said to have spent three consecutive months preaching it in its entirety in one of the deva realms, before an audience of thousands of devas (including his late mother, the former Queen Maya), each day briefly commuting back to the human realm to convey to Ven. Sariputta the essence of what he had just taught.[2] Sariputta mastered the Abhidhamma and codified it into roughly its present form. Although parts of the Abhidhamma were recited at the earlier Buddhist Councils, it wasn't until the Third Council (ca. 250 BCE) that it became fixed into its present form as the third and final Pitaka of the canon.[3]
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tip ... index.html

Abhidhamma is indeed held to be direct Buddhavacana.

Abhidharma is not, which is why we has a system of tenets.

Abhidharma is held to be the advanced discussion of arhats concerning the detailed and advanced points of the Agamas, Vinaya, etc. In Abhidharma, it is generally considered that the Sautrantikas are more authoritative than the Vaibhashikas because the Sautrantikas hold up Vaibhashika tenets to scrutiny viz. the Agamic sūtras.

Even so, "Abhidharma" still means "higher dharma." Everyone should study Abhidharma. If they did, it would end a lot of senseless conversations and prevent myriads more.
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: 5456
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by Queequeg » Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:11 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:15 pm
Everyone should study Abhidharma. If they did, it would end a lot of senseless conversations and prevent myriads more.
Then what would we do?
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

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

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by rory » Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:21 am

I have to say I find this conversation of Malcolm's interesting as he excorciated Coemgemu for writing a limerick and now comes here to destroy believers' faith in the Lotus Sutra, talk about slandering the Dharma and creating terrible karma!

Interestingly He has to do this as the Lotus Sutra repudiates Yogacara and early Madhyamika the philosophical mainstrays of Tibetan Buddhism. As the Lotus Sutra from the beginning postulates that all not just the chosen few, but women, animals, all creatures are on the path to Buddhahood thus slaying the notion that there is a special Buddhist elite. If an eleven year old Dragon girl, can instantly transform into a Buddha the possiblity it open to all. Especially without lifetime after lifetime of practices to purge our bad karma.
Read the excellent article below by Prof. Jan Nattier published in Tricycle:
Thubten was caught in a classic Mahayana predicament. As a devoted Buddhist, he accepted the verdict of his tradition that all Mahayana scriptures were the word of the person we call the historical Buddha, Shakyamuni. But at the same time, it seemed quite clear to him that theLotus Sutra conflicted with much of what he, as a Mahayana Buddhist monk, had been taught

I suspect that Thubten’s shock at encountering the Lotus was not, historically speaking, all that unusual. On the contrary, I think it might well have resembled in many ways what most Indian Buddhists in the first or second century C.E. felt when they first heard this very revolutionary text. For the Lotus does not only critique what some Mahayanists describe as the Hinayana (“lower vehicle”); it also contradicts much of what, at the time of its composition, was seen as constituting the Mahayana (“greater vehicle”) tradition as well.

The Mahayana is often perceived as pro-laity, pro-family, even pro-women, and thus as a form of Buddhism particularly well adapted to the presumably more egalitarian societies of the world today. But it is becoming increasingly clear to scholars that this vision of the character of Mahayana Buddhism has been shaped by a very atypical text, namely, the Lotus Sutra ..

we encounter—in the first or second century C.E.—a radical departure from this consensus. In the Lotus Sutra we hear that arhatship is not a genuine alternative destination, but that all Buddhist practitioners—not just a few—are en route to Buddhahood. We hear that the attainment of Buddhahood is not the result of aeons of self-sacrifice but is far easier than had previously been supposed, and that even a child who builds a stupa out of sand will one day become a Buddha.

In short, virtually every one of the key assumptions of early Mahayana Buddhism has been radically overturned.

But the Lotus Sutra challenged a basic assumption about the nature of the Buddhist path shared by both the proponents of the nirvana of the arhat and the advocates of the newer option to “go for the gold” of Buddhahood. For both groups saw Buddhist practice as a path—that is, as a prolonged process of step-by-step self-cultivation.

Rather, in the Lotusthe very idea of a path is radically undermined. Instead, practice is fulfilled by accepting, in all humility, Shakyamuni’s word that through faith one will attain Buddhahood in the future. As the closing lines of chapter 2 of the sutra put it, “Have no further doubts; rejoice greatly in your hearts, knowing that you will become Buddhas.”

Although Tibetan Buddhism has largely jettisoned arhatship as a valid goal, it has maintained a strong commitment to the notion of spiritual cultivation. To hear the Buddha proclaim that every practitioner is destined for Buddhahood—even those who, like the legendary betrayer of the dharma, Devadatta, are guilty of heinous crimes—would seem to subvert the very foundation of the long and demanding practice of the bodhisattva path.


https://tricycle.org/magazine/greater-awakening/
as you can see the Lotus Sutra undermines so much of TB's assumptions and it upsets Malcolm so he comes here to disturb your faith.
I have deep faith in the Lotus Sutra as do many Nichiren practitioners that I have had the good fortune to meet; their faith and practice is an inspiration to me!
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
PuerAzaelis
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:37 pm

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by PuerAzaelis » Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:28 am

Is there a consensus as to a good website or book to study it, nice notes, commentary, etc.?
Generally, enjoyment of speech is the gateway to poor [results]. So it becomes the foundation for generating all negative emotional states. Jampel Pawo, The Certainty of the Diamond Mind

For posts from this user, see Karma Dondrup Tashi account.

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9253
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by DGA » Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:35 am

rory wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:21 am
I have to say I find this conversation of Malcolm's interesting as he excorciated Coemgemu for writing a limerick and now comes here to destroy believers' faith in the Lotus Sutra, talk about slandering the Dharma and creating terrible karma!
Where has Malcolm done this, at all, in this thread or elsewhere?

It seems to me that he's upholding the Lotus Sutra, but in a way that you don't have a frame of reference for.
Interestingly He has to do this as the Lotus Sutra repudiates Yogacara and early Madhyamika the philosophical mainstrays of Tibetan Buddhism. As the Lotus Sutra from the beginning postulates that all not just the chosen few, but women, animals, all creatures are on the path to Buddhahood thus slaying the notion that there is a special Buddhist elite. If an eleven year old Dragon girl, can instantly transform into a Buddha the possiblity it open to all. Especially without lifetime after lifetime of practices to purge our bad karma.
Read the excellent article below by Prof. Jan Nattier published in Tricycle:
Thubten was caught in a classic Mahayana predicament. As a devoted Buddhist, he accepted the verdict of his tradition that all Mahayana scriptures were the word of the person we call the historical Buddha, Shakyamuni. But at the same time, it seemed quite clear to him that theLotus Sutra conflicted with much of what he, as a Mahayana Buddhist monk, had been taught

I suspect that Thubten’s shock at encountering the Lotus was not, historically speaking, all that unusual. On the contrary, I think it might well have resembled in many ways what most Indian Buddhists in the first or second century C.E. felt when they first heard this very revolutionary text. For the Lotus does not only critique what some Mahayanists describe as the Hinayana (“lower vehicle”); it also contradicts much of what, at the time of its composition, was seen as constituting the Mahayana (“greater vehicle”) tradition as well.

The Mahayana is often perceived as pro-laity, pro-family, even pro-women, and thus as a form of Buddhism particularly well adapted to the presumably more egalitarian societies of the world today. But it is becoming increasingly clear to scholars that this vision of the character of Mahayana Buddhism has been shaped by a very atypical text, namely, the Lotus Sutra ..

we encounter—in the first or second century C.E.—a radical departure from this consensus. In the Lotus Sutra we hear that arhatship is not a genuine alternative destination, but that all Buddhist practitioners—not just a few—are en route to Buddhahood. We hear that the attainment of Buddhahood is not the result of aeons of self-sacrifice but is far easier than had previously been supposed, and that even a child who builds a stupa out of sand will one day become a Buddha.

In short, virtually every one of the key assumptions of early Mahayana Buddhism has been radically overturned.

But the Lotus Sutra challenged a basic assumption about the nature of the Buddhist path shared by both the proponents of the nirvana of the arhat and the advocates of the newer option to “go for the gold” of Buddhahood. For both groups saw Buddhist practice as a path—that is, as a prolonged process of step-by-step self-cultivation.

Rather, in the Lotusthe very idea of a path is radically undermined. Instead, practice is fulfilled by accepting, in all humility, Shakyamuni’s word that through faith one will attain Buddhahood in the future. As the closing lines of chapter 2 of the sutra put it, “Have no further doubts; rejoice greatly in your hearts, knowing that you will become Buddhas.”

Although Tibetan Buddhism has largely jettisoned arhatship as a valid goal, it has maintained a strong commitment to the notion of spiritual cultivation. To hear the Buddha proclaim that every practitioner is destined for Buddhahood—even those who, like the legendary betrayer of the dharma, Devadatta, are guilty of heinous crimes—would seem to subvert the very foundation of the long and demanding practice of the bodhisattva path.


https://tricycle.org/magazine/greater-awakening/
as you can see the Lotus Sutra undermines so much of TB's assumptions and it upsets Malcolm so he comes here to disturb your faith.
I have deep faith in the Lotus Sutra as do many Nichiren practitioners that I have had the good fortune to meet; their faith and practice is an inspiration to me!
No, it doesn't follow from what you've quoted that the Lotus Sutra "undermines so much of TB's assumptions." That's a non sequitur. The material you quoted states that the Lotus Sutra contradicts the slow, slow, slow path of the Mahayana bodhisattva. In that sense, the LS teachings share more in common with Vajrayana and Dzogchen, which promise a much faster path. If you'd like to discuss that, I suggest you take it to the Tibetan forum.

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

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by rory » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:44 am

rory wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:21 am
I have to say I find this conversation of Malcolm's interesting as he excorciated Coemgemu for writing a limerick and now comes here to destroy believers' faith in the Lotus Sutra, talk about slandering the Dharma and creating terrible karma!
DGA: Where has Malcolm done this, at all, in this thread or elsewhere?
Right here in this threadviewtopic.php?f=53&t=27003&start=60
Though I have to say DGA you were just as bad with your thread "Who is a Slanderer of the Lotus Sutra".
viewtopic.php?f=53&t=27063

When both of you get rebuked you think it's fine to pick on the Nichiren Buddhists, as you have low respect for them. You should be bowing to them!

It seems to me that he's upholding the Lotus Sutra, but in a way that you don't have a frame of reference for.
Interestingly He has to do this as the Lotus Sutra repudiates Yogacara and early Madhyamika the philosophical mainstrays of Tibetan Buddhism. As the Lotus Sutra from the beginning postulates that all not just the chosen few, but women, animals, all creatures are on the path to Buddhahood thus slaying the notion that there is a special Buddhist elite. If an eleven year old Dragon girl, can instantly transform into a Buddha the possiblity it open to all. Especially without lifetime after lifetime of practices to purge our bad karma.
Read the excellent article below by Prof. Jan Nattier published in Tricycle:
Thubten was caught in a classic Mahayana predicament. As a devoted Buddhist, he accepted the verdict of his tradition that all Mahayana scriptures were the word of the person we call the historical Buddha, Shakyamuni. But at the same time, it seemed quite clear to him that theLotus Sutra conflicted with much of what he, as a Mahayana Buddhist monk, had been taught

I suspect that Thubten’s shock at encountering the Lotus was not, historically speaking, all that unusual. On the contrary, I think it might well have resembled in many ways what most Indian Buddhists in the first or second century C.E. felt when they first heard this very revolutionary text. For the Lotus does not only critique what some Mahayanists describe as the Hinayana (“lower vehicle”); it also contradicts much of what, at the time of its composition, was seen as constituting the Mahayana (“greater vehicle”) tradition as well.

The Mahayana is often perceived as pro-laity, pro-family, even pro-women, and thus as a form of Buddhism particularly well adapted to the presumably more egalitarian societies of the world today. But it is becoming increasingly clear to scholars that this vision of the character of Mahayana Buddhism has been shaped by a very atypical text, namely, the Lotus Sutra ..

we encounter—in the first or second century C.E.—a radical departure from this consensus. In the Lotus Sutra we hear that arhatship is not a genuine alternative destination, but that all Buddhist practitioners—not just a few—are en route to Buddhahood. We hear that the attainment of Buddhahood is not the result of aeons of self-sacrifice but is far easier than had previously been supposed, and that even a child who builds a stupa out of sand will one day become a Buddha.

In short, virtually every one of the key assumptions of early Mahayana Buddhism has been radically overturned.

But the Lotus Sutra challenged a basic assumption about the nature of the Buddhist path shared by both the proponents of the nirvana of the arhat and the advocates of the newer option to “go for the gold” of Buddhahood. For both groups saw Buddhist practice as a path—that is, as a prolonged process of step-by-step self-cultivation.

Rather, in the Lotusthe very idea of a path is radically undermined. Instead, practice is fulfilled by accepting, in all humility, Shakyamuni’s word that through faith one will attain Buddhahood in the future. As the closing lines of chapter 2 of the sutra put it, “Have no further doubts; rejoice greatly in your hearts, knowing that you will become Buddhas.”

Although Tibetan Buddhism has largely jettisoned arhatship as a valid goal, it has maintained a strong commitment to the notion of spiritual cultivation. To hear the Buddha proclaim that every practitioner is destined for Buddhahood—even those who, like the legendary betrayer of the dharma, Devadatta, are guilty of heinous crimes—would seem to subvert the very foundation of the long and demanding practice of the bodhisattva path.


https://tricycle.org/magazine/greater-awakening/
as you can see the Lotus Sutra undermines so much of TB's assumptions and it upsets Malcolm so he comes here to disturb your faith.
I have deep faith in the Lotus Sutra as do many Nichiren practitioners that I have had the good fortune to meet; their faith and practice is an inspiration to me!
No, it doesn't follow from what you've quoted that the Lotus Sutra "undermines so much of TB's assumptions." That's a non sequitur. The material you quoted states that the Lotus Sutra contradicts the slow, slow, slow path of the Mahayana bodhisattva. In that sense, the LS teachings share more in common with Vajrayana and Dzogchen, which promise a much faster path. If you'd like to discuss that, I suggest you take it to the Tibetan forum.
[/quote]

DGA, the entire point of Prof. Nattier's article is the Thubten the Tibetan Buddhist monk was appalled that the Lotus Sutra contradicted everything he was taught. .
Tiantai liberates ordinary beings!
Chih-I's point is that the attainment of liberation in the form of no-extirpation is based on special wisdom which is not obstructed by, but rather embraces defilements.....l
Ng "T'ien-t'ai Buddhism and Early Madhyamika p. 169

The Lotus Sutra is regarded as a supreme text all over East Asia; promoting the radical equality of all beings and their future Buddhahood. The buddhanature of Devadatta is no different than my buddhanature or that of my cat or that of the Buddha.
This is the great Dharma that I and so many follow.

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
The Cicada
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:15 am
Location: Trumpaloka

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by The Cicada » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:53 am

rory wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:44 am
The Lotus Sutra is regarded as a supreme text all over East Asia; promoting the radical equality of all beings and their future Buddhahood. The buddhanature of Devadatta is no different than my buddhanature or that of my cat or that of the Buddha.
This is the great Dharma that I and so many follow.

gassho
Rory
"Splendid! Splendid!"

:buddha1:

:namaste:

User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 3:47 am
Location: The American Colosseum

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by Virgo » Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:29 am

Queequeg wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:11 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:15 pm
Everyone should study Abhidharma. If they did, it would end a lot of senseless conversations and prevent myriads more.
Then what would we do?
Study Abhidharma...

Kevin
ངོ་རང་ཐོག་ཏུ་སྤྲད། །
ཐག་གཅིག་ཐོག་ཏུ་བཅད། །
གདེང་གྲོལ་ཐོག་ཏུ་བཅའ། །

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/videos
http://caretoclick.com/save-the-rainfor ... orestation
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otGs4ZMOyq4

User avatar
liuzg150181
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:41 am

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by liuzg150181 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:33 am

rory wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:44 am
rory wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:21 am
I have to say I find this conversation of Malcolm's interesting as he excorciated Coemgemu for writing a limerick and now comes here to destroy believers' faith in the Lotus Sutra, talk about slandering the Dharma and creating terrible karma!
DGA: Where has Malcolm done this, at all, in this thread or elsewhere?
Right here in this threadviewtopic.php?f=53&t=27003&start=60
Though I have to say DGA you were just as bad with your thread "Who is a Slanderer of the Lotus Sutra".
viewtopic.php?f=53&t=27063

When both of you get rebuked you think it's fine to pick on the Nichiren Buddhists, as you have low respect for them. You should be bowing to them!

It seems to me that he's upholding the Lotus Sutra, but in a way that you don't have a frame of reference for.
Interestingly He has to do this as the Lotus Sutra repudiates Yogacara and early Madhyamika the philosophical mainstrays of Tibetan Buddhism. As the Lotus Sutra from the beginning postulates that all not just the chosen few, but women, animals, all creatures are on the path to Buddhahood thus slaying the notion that there is a special Buddhist elite. If an eleven year old Dragon girl, can instantly transform into a Buddha the possiblity it open to all. Especially without lifetime after lifetime of practices to purge our bad karma.
Read the excellent article below by Prof. Jan Nattier published in Tricycle:
Thubten was caught in a classic Mahayana predicament. As a devoted Buddhist, he accepted the verdict of his tradition that all Mahayana scriptures were the word of the person we call the historical Buddha, Shakyamuni. But at the same time, it seemed quite clear to him that theLotus Sutra conflicted with much of what he, as a Mahayana Buddhist monk, had been taught

I suspect that Thubten’s shock at encountering the Lotus was not, historically speaking, all that unusual. On the contrary, I think it might well have resembled in many ways what most Indian Buddhists in the first or second century C.E. felt when they first heard this very revolutionary text. For the Lotus does not only critique what some Mahayanists describe as the Hinayana (“lower vehicle”); it also contradicts much of what, at the time of its composition, was seen as constituting the Mahayana (“greater vehicle”) tradition as well.

The Mahayana is often perceived as pro-laity, pro-family, even pro-women, and thus as a form of Buddhism particularly well adapted to the presumably more egalitarian societies of the world today. But it is becoming increasingly clear to scholars that this vision of the character of Mahayana Buddhism has been shaped by a very atypical text, namely, the Lotus Sutra ..

we encounter—in the first or second century C.E.—a radical departure from this consensus. In the Lotus Sutra we hear that arhatship is not a genuine alternative destination, but that all Buddhist practitioners—not just a few—are en route to Buddhahood. We hear that the attainment of Buddhahood is not the result of aeons of self-sacrifice but is far easier than had previously been supposed, and that even a child who builds a stupa out of sand will one day become a Buddha.

In short, virtually every one of the key assumptions of early Mahayana Buddhism has been radically overturned.

But the Lotus Sutra challenged a basic assumption about the nature of the Buddhist path shared by both the proponents of the nirvana of the arhat and the advocates of the newer option to “go for the gold” of Buddhahood. For both groups saw Buddhist practice as a path—that is, as a prolonged process of step-by-step self-cultivation.

Rather, in the Lotusthe very idea of a path is radically undermined. Instead, practice is fulfilled by accepting, in all humility, Shakyamuni’s word that through faith one will attain Buddhahood in the future. As the closing lines of chapter 2 of the sutra put it, “Have no further doubts; rejoice greatly in your hearts, knowing that you will become Buddhas.”

Although Tibetan Buddhism has largely jettisoned arhatship as a valid goal, it has maintained a strong commitment to the notion of spiritual cultivation. To hear the Buddha proclaim that every practitioner is destined for Buddhahood—even those who, like the legendary betrayer of the dharma, Devadatta, are guilty of heinous crimes—would seem to subvert the very foundation of the long and demanding practice of the bodhisattva path.


https://tricycle.org/magazine/greater-awakening/
as you can see the Lotus Sutra undermines so much of TB's assumptions and it upsets Malcolm so he comes here to disturb your faith.
I have deep faith in the Lotus Sutra as do many Nichiren practitioners that I have had the good fortune to meet; their faith and practice is an inspiration to me!
No, it doesn't follow from what you've quoted that the Lotus Sutra "undermines so much of TB's assumptions." That's a non sequitur. The material you quoted states that the Lotus Sutra contradicts the slow, slow, slow path of the Mahayana bodhisattva. In that sense, the LS teachings share more in common with Vajrayana and Dzogchen, which promise a much faster path. If you'd like to discuss that, I suggest you take it to the Tibetan forum.
DGA, the entire point of Prof. Nattier's article is the Thubten the Tibetan Buddhist monk was appalled that the Lotus Sutra contradicted everything he was taught. .
Tiantai liberates ordinary beings!
Chih-I's point is that the attainment of liberation in the form of no-extirpation is based on special wisdom which is not obstructed by, but rather embraces defilements.....l
Ng "T'ien-t'ai Buddhism and Early Madhyamika p. 169

The Lotus Sutra is regarded as a supreme text all over East Asia; promoting the radical equality of all beings and their future Buddhahood. The buddhanature of Devadatta is no different than my buddhanature or that of my cat or that of the Buddha.
This is the great Dharma that I and so many follow.

gassho
Rory
[/quote]
Do note that Tibetan Buddhism itself is not a homoegenous system, with different schools espousing a differing approaches and views(very likely Jan Nattier didn't realize this). So arguably the geshe in reference would likely be a Gelugpa(though I might be wrong).

As Malcolm had mentioned before,Tibetan Buddhism tends to be Ekayana, so for example afaik Drikung Kagyu espouses such view that all Buddhist paths will eventually lead to Buddhahood,hence their treatise known as "Gong Chig"(meaning single intent,in reference to Buddhahood).

For Yogacara and Madhyamika in TB,TB follows the latter as absolute(I think Yogacara has more influence in Chinese Buddhism)the concept of people totally incapable of attaining buddhahood is only found in Yogacara but not Madhyamika,as Malcolm had mentioned:
"Are you now going to adopt the yogacara position that there are also so called icchantikas, sentient beings absolutely incapable of bUddhahood?"


"So you understand that this point of view is utterly rejected by Madhyamaka?

Why would anyone wish to follow the tenets of a lower school when there is a higher one available? As for Mipham, this is not hus personal position."


"Maintaining that woman are incapable of attaining buddhahood in a female bidy is a samaya violation for any Vajrayana practitioner, just as holding that there are icchantikas."


viewtopic.php?t=22669

Moreover,in Dzogchen (also Jonang's Zhentong view and Nyingma),Buddha nature is emphasized. So considering Malcolm is Dzogchen practitioner,I find it odd such accusation is made.
Last edited by liuzg150181 on Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
liuzg150181
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:41 am

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by liuzg150181 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:51 am

The Cicada wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:53 am
rory wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:44 am
The Lotus Sutra is regarded as a supreme text all over East Asia; promoting the radical equality of all beings and their future Buddhahood. The buddhanature of Devadatta is no different than my buddhanature or that of my cat or that of the Buddha.
This is the great Dharma that I and so many follow.

gassho
Rory
"Splendid! Splendid!"

:buddha1:

:namaste:
Afaik not really radical,it is from Tathāgatagarbha, one of the three mainstays of Mahayana teaching(along with Yogacara and Madhyamaka.

Bristollad
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by Bristollad » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:09 am

liuzg150181 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:33 am
Do note that Tibetan Buddhism itself is not a homoegenous system, with different schools espousing a differing approaches and views(very likely Jan Nattier didn't realize this). So arguably the geshe in reference would likely be a Gelugpa(though I might be wrong).
The Gelugpa position on this is no different than the other Tibetan traditions - all sentient beings have Buddha nature. I suspect that what “Geshe Thubten” found shocking was something else, perhaps the emphasis on other-power?

The article itself (as distinct from the chosen quotes) seems to point to the difference between progress/gradual and leap/sudden approaches to understanding what it means to be a buddhist.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1549
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by Coëmgenu » Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:51 pm

liuzg150181 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:51 am
The Cicada wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:53 am
rory wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:44 am
The Lotus Sutra is regarded as a supreme text all over East Asia; promoting the radical equality of all beings and their future Buddhahood. The buddhanature of Devadatta is no different than my buddhanature or that of my cat or that of the Buddha.
This is the great Dharma that I and so many follow.

gassho
Rory
"Splendid! Splendid!"

:buddha1:

:namaste:
Afaik not really radical,it is from Tathāgatagarbha, one of the three mainstays of Mahayana teaching(along with Yogacara and Madhyamaka.
Ven Zhiyi is pre-Yogacara, in the sense that he was writing in a time before Yogacara became highly prominent as a mainstream discourse. It was still in the stages of disseminating in China at the time. That is also something to keep in mind when comparing Tiantai & Tiantai stolon schools to other Buddhisms that grew up in this fusion in East Asia. In fact, later Tiantai patriarchs would participate in the development and adoption of that threefold fusion you mentioned, but Tiantai has roots reaching into the extreme antiquity of Buddhism in China, and as such, has substantial parallel-but-different focusses and presentations.

Even this threefold fusion is subtley differently spoken of and presented in East Asia and Tibet.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.

吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1549
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by Coëmgenu » Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:11 pm

For instance, I willl find the quote in a bit, but, there is a preserved private correspondence of Ven Zhiyi's, commenting on "Vasubandhu's mind-only system", and IMO it can be inferred from it that at this embryonic stage of East Asian Yogacara is was still ambiguous as to if cittamatra constituted a mind-only essentialism. If such was the case, I would hazard a guess that the state of initial Yogacara translation into Chinese could be intersecting with this. Post forthcoming shortly.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.

吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

User avatar
liuzg150181
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:41 am

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by liuzg150181 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:35 pm

Bristollad wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:09 am
liuzg150181 wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:33 am
Do note that Tibetan Buddhism itself is not a homoegenous system, with different schools espousing a differing approaches and views(very likely Jan Nattier didn't realize this). So arguably the geshe in reference would likely be a Gelugpa(though I might be wrong).
The Gelugpa position on this is no different than the other Tibetan traditions - all sentient beings have Buddha nature. I suspect that what “Geshe Thubten” found shocking was something else, perhaps the emphasis on other-power?

The article itself (as distinct from the chosen quotes) seems to point to the difference between progress/gradual and leap/sudden approaches to understanding what it means to be a buddhist.
Emphasis on other-power should be familiar to Tibetan Buddhist as well,since Pureland practice - like Amitabha- is pretty well-known as popular in TB as well. And Pureland practice relies on 'other-power' one way or another.
As for Gelugpa view on Buddha nature,so far for what I had read, Gelugpas generally considers 'Buddha nature' provisional teaching,considering it the second turning of wheel,with 'emptiness' as definite teaching(totally the opposite of Jonang,which believe the other way):
viewtopic.php?t=3456
"The mainstream Geluk position regarding the "Three Turnings of the Wheel" differs from that of other schools in some respects, as well. In general, the Geluk position regarding "Buddha Nature" is that it is not "inherently existent" in the sentient being, but that it is an expedient teaching, reflecting the "potential" of all sentient beings to attain enlightenment, by purifying habitual patterns and by amassing merit on the paths."

Had a few teachings from Jhado rinpoche of Gelug school,and his presentation jives with what is quoted,as he mainly explained from the 'emptiness' pov without reference to Buddha nature directly afaik. If anything, nyingma lamas and rinpoches tend to explain extensively abt Buddha nature based on my experience, but again,the bulk of my learning came from Nyingma teachings,so it might be a form of selection bias.

As for progress/gradual and leap/sudden approaches,c'mon,even within different Tibetan schools it has debated until ad nauseam in the TB sub-forum. :tantrum:

User avatar
liuzg150181
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:41 am

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by liuzg150181 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:38 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:11 pm
For instance, I willl find the quote in a bit, but, there is a preserved private correspondence of Ven Zhiyi's, commenting on "Vasubandhu's mind-only system", and IMO it can be inferred from it that at this embryonic stage of East Asian Yogacara is was still ambiguous as to if cittamatra constituted a mind-only essentialism. If such was the case, I would hazard a guess that the state of initial Yogacara translation into Chinese could be intersecting with this. Post forthcoming shortly.
Sounds interesting,really looking forward to it. :smile:
My knowledge of buddhism is paltry,but it seems to be Yogacara school wasnt really established in China until Xuanzang brought it from India.

User avatar
liuzg150181
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:41 am

Re: simultaneity of cause and effect

Post by liuzg150181 » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:51 pm

Also,did a bit of research,and found out that Tibetan does have Lotus Sutra,first translated from Chinese source by Sakya school:
viewtopic.php?f=59&t=18909&start=40

Of course this fact,when juxtaposed with Jan Huttier's Geshe story,seems odd,since it is already known to Tibetan Buddhism,and even if the Geshe didnt know,then he would likely to explain it as provisional as they had done with the tons of scriptures they have.

Post Reply

Return to “Nichiren”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests