simultaneity of cause and effect

[Malcolm]

before being cisformed back into her normal form in that instant.

No, there is no support at all for this point of view in the text.

[Malcolm]

but that just leaves us claiming that the other side believes in a bunch of mythological hooey.

Yes, you finally figured it out...

[Minobu]

but that just leaves us claiming that the other side believes in a bunch of mythological hooey.

Yes, you finally figured it out...

I've asked you to actually answer this question so many times and you dance around it for some odd reason.

i take it from what i've read you have written that Mahayana Sutra are just myths and legends....your words you wrote once.

So that implies that what ever you are teaching isn't reallyBuddhist but just using Buddhism as a sort of good house keeping seal of approval.

it also gives me a reason to refer to you as an elitist above the common people who believe in Buddhism as it has been handed down.

this is not some ad hominem ..it's just in line with the vague line you just used as a quote.

so lets see if you can come out with it ..

In my heart of hearts i would like to see.

No Dave i believe the Sutras are not myth or legend, in any way but the golden Words of the Buddha in fact each word of the Lotus sutra is a Golden Buddha


EDIT: In my heart of hearts i would like to see.

[Caoimhghín]

Why can't Mañjuśrī bodhisattva see that she is a non-retrograding bodhisattva? That is a question IMO. Is she hiding it from him? How can she do such a thing?

This question should have been about Bodhisattva Accumulated Wisdom, not Mañjuśrī bodhisattva necessarily.

[Malcolm]

i take it from what i've read you have written that Mahayana Sutra are just myths and legends....your words you wrote once.

I once speculated that Mahāyāna Sūtras were visionary revelations, but not records of actual historical events.

However, clinging to the events described in the Lotus Sūtra, or any other Mahāyāna Sūtra, opens up an uncomfortable can of worms for those who literally believe in the text of the sūtra in question.

For example, have you ever seen Vulture's Peak where the Buddha is said to have taught this sūtra?




How are 12,000 arhat bhikṣus supposed to fit there? Let alone, 2,000 extra, 6,000 nuns, and 80,000 bodhisattvas? Were they all levitating in space around the mountain?

[Caoimhghín]

i take it from what i've read you have written that Mahayana Sutra are just myths and legends....your words you wrote once.

I once speculated that Mahāyāna Sūtras were visionary revelations, but not records of actual historical events.

However, clinging to the events described in the Lotus Sūtra, or any other Mahāyāna Sūtra, opens up an uncomfortable can of worms for those who literally believe in the text of the sūtra in question.

For example, have you ever seen Vulture's Peak where the Buddha is said to have taught this sūtra?




How are 12,000 arhat bhikṣus supposed to fit there? Let alone, 2,000 extra, 6,000 nuns, and 80,000 bodhisattvas? Were they all levitating in space around the mountain?

If I recall correctly, some Buddhist scholasticists, I cannot recall from whichever tradition, hypothesized visible-or-invisible floating platforms which materialized to hold the hosts viewing the Buddha.

[Caoimhghín]

If I recall correctly, some Buddhist scholasticists, I cannot recall from whichever tradition, hypothesized visible-or-invisible floating platforms which materialized to hold the hosts viewing the Buddha.

This is turning out to be very hard to find substantiation for, but I am giving it my best, because I swear that one cannot make this up.

[Simon E.]

but that just leaves us claiming that the other side believes in a bunch of mythological hooey.

Yes, you finally figured it out...

I wouldn't go that far personally.
Myths can be very potent teaching aids.
What they are not is any kind of history or record of conventional reality.

[Queequeg]

What they are not is any kind of history or record of conventional reality.

That goes too far... there are plenty of things we've thought were myth, only to find evidence that they are historical accounts - albeit often times mixed with myth. King Ashoka, for instance.

[Malcolm]

but that just leaves us claiming that the other side believes in a bunch of mythological hooey.

Yes, you finally figured it out...

I wouldn't go that far personally.
Myths can be very potent teaching aids.
What they are not is any kind of history or record of conventional reality.

I was pointing out the poverty of negating someone else's mythological hooey and trying to prove your own. Most Buddhist polemics boil down to exactly that unless they are strictly doctrinal, for example, Yogacara, Madhyamaka, etc.

[Caoimhghín]

What they are not is any kind of history or record of conventional reality.

That goes too far... there are plenty of things we've thought were myth, only to find evidence that they are historical accounts - albeit often times mixed with myth. King Ashoka, for instance.

Or the city of Troy, a famous example.

That being said, I also don't think any meteorologists are going to spot any flying jewelled stupas any time soon.

[Queequeg]

I once speculated that Mahāyāna Sūtras were visionary revelations, but not records of actual historical events.

However, clinging to the events described in the Lotus Sūtra, or any other Mahāyāna Sūtra, opens up an uncomfortable can of worms for those who literally believe in the text of the sūtra in question.

For example, have you ever seen Vulture's Peak where the Buddha is said to have taught this sūtra?

If the description of the assembly at the opening of the Sutra did not clue one into the nature of the teaching, the UFO emerging from the Earth should have removed all doubt. And this is coming from someone who believes the Sutra to be utterly true.

What gives?

This [Lotus] sutra deals with the original mind [of enlightenment] in the waking state. But because living beings are accustomed to thinking in the mental terms appropriate to a dream state, it borrows the language of the dream state in order to teach the waking state of the original mind. However, though the language is that employed in a dream state, the intention behind it is to give instruction in the waking state of the original mind. This is the aim of both the text of the Lotus Sutra itself and of the commentaries on it. If one does not clearly understand this, one will invariably misunderstand the wording of both the sutra and its commentaries.

-Nichiren, Unanimous Declaration of the Buddhas

[Malcolm]

If the description of the assembly at the opening of the Sutra did not clue one into the nature of the teaching, the UFO emerging from the Earth should have removed all doubt. And this is coming from someone who believes the Sutra to be utterly true.

So you believe it be utterly true, rather then literally true?

[Queequeg]

If the description of the assembly at the opening of the Sutra did not clue one into the nature of the teaching, the UFO emerging from the Earth should have removed all doubt. And this is coming from someone who believes the Sutra to be utterly true.

So you believe it be utterly true, rather then literally true?

Fair distinction. I included the quote to explain what I meant.

[Malcolm]

If the description of the assembly at the opening of the Sutra did not clue one into the nature of the teaching, the UFO emerging from the Earth should have removed all doubt. And this is coming from someone who believes the Sutra to be utterly true.

So you believe it be utterly true, rather then literally true?

Fair distinction. I included the quote to explain what I meant.

And since you do not believe it to be literally true, Minobu should be hassling you?

[Queequeg]

Minobu and I have been down that road.

I'm just more charming.

[Caoimhghín]

Minobu and I have been down that road.

I'm just more charming.

You are also, I assume, quite younger. I suspect that when I am as old as Minobu, I will similarly come off as out-of-touch with "new" things and ideas in general, for the simple reason that they are 'new' and I will not be. This goes equally for things that are "contemporarily new" and things that are "new to me".

I suspect that I will talk about things that other people are not familiar with. I suspect that I will assume any educated person is familiar with them. I suspect that I will draw greatly upon personal experience and deeply personal modes of communication, simply because I will have had a great deal more 'personal experiences' than I have now, generally.

[Simon E.]

What they are not is any kind of history or record of conventional reality.

That goes too far... there are plenty of things we've thought were myth, only to find evidence that they are historical accounts - albeit often times mixed with myth. King Ashoka, for instance.

I think there is a clear difference between speculative history which is subsequently shown to be factual, and myth... which is of a different order of reality. But may still be 'true' inasmuch as it throws light on real processes and truths.

[Simon E.]

Yes, you finally figured it out...

I wouldn't go that far personally.
Myths can be very potent teaching aids.
What they are not is any kind of history or record of conventional reality.

I was pointing out the poverty of negating someone else's mythological hooey and trying to prove your own. Most Buddhist polemics boil down to exactly that unless they are strictly doctrinal, for example, Yogacara, Madhyamaka, etc.

My PC skills are still pretty primitive, so I don't always edit quotes skillfully enough.
The 'not going that far' was in response to 'hooey'..

[Minobu]

for me the happenings in the Lotus that seem incredible are down to the Buddha's powers./
And somewhere on here i mentioned that not everyone could see what was happening and that it was something that people could take part in due to the Buddha's power.

so like some tourista walking around at the time would see a barren mountainside...whilst all this was going on...

now maybe it is like Nichiren daishonin explained.

This [Lotus] sutra deals with the original mind [of enlightenment] in the waking state. But because living beings are accustomed to thinking in the mental terms appropriate to a dream state, it borrows the language of the dream state in order to teach the waking state of the original mind. However, though the language is that employed in a dream state, the intention behind it is to give instruction in the waking state of the original mind. This is the aim of both the text of the Lotus Sutra itself and of the commentaries on it. If one does not clearly understand this, one will invariably misunderstand the wording of both the sutra and its commentaries.

but the real question is how does the Sutra come to be.

All were written well after the Parinirvana of the Buddha Sakyamuni ?

all start with thus i heard....
so who heard from who and how.

there is a difference between writing a story made up and writing something you heard.

how far down the myth and legend rabbit hole do you want to go....

is it all just along the lines of some contrived thing like placing a crown on a king's head and verifying that God willed this....you now belong to him and are ruled by him and we his priests can attest to this.

i can easily see it being the same paradigm to control people and be their high priests and bring about a new world order way back when...

i appreciate malcolm's take on it and i don;t hassle anyone except in getting them to say what they really think and believe...

Malcolm seems very politically correct in his answers ...

if i hassle it is for a more lucid blunt answer...


so lets have it then
"who heard from who and how". some sort of Dharmakaya thing?
a vision?

did the Stupa come out of the ground as some huger than huge thing with Buddhas inside it ....did certain qualified people see this in some sort of Samadhi happening.

is is all just

This [Lotus] sutra deals with the original mind [of enlightenment] in the waking state. But because living beings are accustomed to thinking in the mental terms appropriate to a dream state, it borrows the language of the dream state in order to teach the waking state of the original mind. However, though the language is that employed in a dream state, the intention behind it is to give instruction in the waking state of the original mind. This is the aim of both the text of the Lotus Sutra itself and of the commentaries on it. If one does not clearly understand this, one will invariably misunderstand the wording of both the sutra and its commentaries.

but again ..who came up with it and how...