does the mahayana deny the four seals?

[Francis king]

hello all... dunno is anyone has mentioned this b4...

was talking to a buddhist the other day who, like me, has some problems with the mahayana's airy fairy-ness, and thought I'd ask this q of the CR buddhists...

according to Hopkins... "many of the hinayana schools do not accept the mahayana sutras as being the word of Buddha, for they think the mahayana teachings contradict the Four Seals...

for instance, the sambhogakaya of the buddha abides forever without disintergrating contradicts the first seal, that all products are impermanent,

...they also say that that to say a bodhisattva proceeds from joy to joy contradicts the second seal, that all comntaminated things are miserable,

...they say that the mahayana teaching that that through meditating on the path one attains a superior self contradicts the third seal, that all phenomena are selfless,

also, they say that the teaching that after a Hearer or Solitary Realizer Enemy Killer attains a nirvana without remainder, he enters into meditation on the Mahayana path contradicts the fourth seal- that nirvana is peace...

thoughts, anyone?

[Snoopy]

Hopkins as in Anne Arundel Hopkins Aitken?

I too have what you touchingly describe as problems with airy fairy-ness but (not wishing to get involved in sectarian warfare, just put my two penneth in) my understanding is that the four seals constitute the bedrock of Buddhism. So I’m kind of struggling (in an over-arching kind of way, rather than the fine detail) to see how all the Mahayana Buddhists in the world are not, well, Buddhists. I suppose if they were in full agreement there wouldn’t be these two traditions. If you accept the four seals as statements of truth then one could be described as a Buddhist. If you do not, then one could not. I reckon your average Mahayana Buddhist, including a Zen Buddhist like Hopkins (if that’s who you’re on about) believes that they accept the seals to be true and it lives within them and how they live their lives. (maybe they're all deluded! )

s.

[Francis king]

hopkins as in- jeffrey paul... the above was from his university thesis- meditation on emptiness (1973) which I was given by an ex-monk, many moon ago...

[Snoopy]

oh well if you're going to be imprecise!

I thought it was either her or Randle & Hopkins Diseased...

s.

anyway my comment still stands, or at least as much as it ever did....

[Francis king]

i happen to like nagarjuna, too! the so-called "founder" of the mahayana

wasn't meaning to diss mahayanists, btw...

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Francis,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Francis king

was talking to a buddhist the other day who, like me, has some problems with the mahayana's airy fairy-ness, and thought I'd ask this q of the CR buddhists...

what an unusual comment... 'airy fairy-ness' i'm not even precisely certain what its meant to refer too.. it seems to be initmating that there is not a rigorous course of study and practice to be found within the various Mahayana schools, further, it seems to be under the mistaken impression that all Mahayana schools teach in the same manner.

according to Hopkins... "many of the hinayana schools do not accept the mahayana sutras as being the word of Buddha, for they think the mahayana teachings contradict the Four Seals...

not sure who Hopkins is that is being referred to here.. in any event, there is only one Hinyana school extant today, Theraveda and we cannot say with any degree of certainty what the other 17 Hinyana schools thought about Mahayana schools as their ceaseing predates the arising of the Mahayana schools.

for instance, the sambhogakaya of the buddha abides forever without disintergrating contradicts the first seal, that all products are impermanent,

what is the Sambhogakaya?

"products"? that is a rather narrow transliteration, don't you think? all phenomena, wether product or cause, is characterized by impermenance and this is reflected in the first of the Noble Truths which is, as you probably know, the foundation upon which all Buddhist schools of practice are predicated.. the Mahayana being no exception.

...they also say that that to say a bodhisattva proceeds from joy to joy contradicts the second seal, that all comntaminated things are miserable,

that is a very narrow transliteration of the term dukkha, in my view and leads to this rather strange conclusion. it is also strange to hear it expressed that a Bodhisattva proceeds from joy to joy as this is not expressed in the Sutras in this manner. when the Buddha Shakyamuni talks about his previous arisings as a Bodhisattva it is never in the cast of proceeding from joy to joy it is more like a waterfall moving with ever increasing momentum towards the goal.

...they say that the mahayana teaching that that through meditating on the path one attains a superior self contradicts the third seal, that all phenomena are selfless,

never heard this expressed in any teachings that i've heard or read, if you are speaking of the Vajrayana methods of generation of divine pride i would suggest that though the words seem plain there is a different understanding being employed.

also, they say that the teaching that after a Hearer or Solitary Realizer Enemy Killer attains a nirvana without remainder, he enters into meditation on the Mahayana path contradicts the fourth seal- that nirvana is peace...

thoughts, anyone?

the Buddha Shakyamuni describes Nibbana in several different manners using a few similies, usually that of fire and the Vedic philosophical position of any phenomena, when not being manifest, exists as potential equally spread throughout the universe.

does Nibbana mean a ceasing of activity? not according to the Suttas that i have read.

i would say that from my understanding entering Nibbana without remainder is that which a Bodhisattva or Buddha does, the path of Arhat, Solitary Realizers, Heary or Stream Enterer is Nibbana with remainder.

metta,

~v

[Francis king]

vajradhara... 'airy fairy-ness' referred to my dislike of some mahayanists emphasis on the more "airy fairy" aspects of the path, such as "bodhisattvas who save the world", and an over emphasis on "loving all beings like their mothers"... that was what "airy fairy" was supposed to refer to... I've mentioned it before, in other threads... thought ppl would get me- sorry all..

...i did not say that the mahayana was a bad path, that was ur intimation, not mine...

and no, I was not assuming that all mahayana schools teach in the same (yes, oftentime abysmal) fashion, again, that was ur inference...

the Hopkins I was referring to is a guy who translates (or at least, did) for the present dalai lama, and I was not supporting or denying his statements, but offering them up for the perusal of others...

...i assumed u would know what the sambhogakaya is, but no, so... sambhogakaya is the "(sam)complete (or perfect) enjoyment (bhoga) body(kaya)" of the Buddha, the part which some Mahayanists believe remains still, in a state of perpetual bliss even now, without decay... the sambhogakaya is just one aspect of the three bodies of the buddha- the dharmakaya and the nirmanakaya being the other two...

yes, products, as in.... all objects, concepts, etc, far from a narrow transliteration... all thing except Ultimate Truth, in fact...

that a bodhisattva proceeds from joy to joy is perhaps his bad interpretation of the concept of "boundless joy" or pramudita, which is one of the four immeasurables...

personally, i believe that all products ARE impermanent- what was Buddha if he wasn't a body? a product? although yes, perhaps his "complete enjoyment body" does remain beyond his body, still... maybe... but would that not mean he remained..? after death? can he do this? if so, how? why..?

to say that a bodhisattva proceeds from joy to joy contradicts the second seal, that all contaminated things are miserable, I agree, does not really describe what duhkha is... duhkha, as we know, means- misery or misfortune, oftentimes described as suffering... the origin of suffering, we are told, is trsna, attachment... for the bodhistttva to be in a state of boundless joy means he is still contaminated with the afflictions as he is attached to joy, and his attachment as we know will bring him suffering, misery and or misfortune... lol...

I think duhkha is pretty all-encompassing... it's pretty deep...

what is a bodhisattva? really? according to most mahayanists a bodhisattva is a higher order of being... but only according to the mahayanists- to translate it, it becomes- "bodhi- awake- sat-being-tva-I" or, to be a bodhisattva means "to be awake to the self"- it does not mean u are a holy transcendental being- although today it is often presented as such, and such beings are said to generate the four immeasurables, one of which is boundless joy... however, being awake to the self does not mean that one is not still contaminated with the afflictions, does it? so maybe theres something in this...

to say that-the mahayana teaching that through meditating on the path one attains a superior self contradicts the third seal, that all phenomena are selfless, I don't agree with this myself... I know from personal eperience that meditating upon the path makes one superior, or rather- arya... noble, not superior... and yes, it can also make one selfless, as it should...

...to say that the teaching that after a Hearer or Solitary-Realizer-Enemy Killer attains a nirvana without remainder, he enters into meditation on the Mahayana path contradicts the fourth seal- that nirvana is peace...

...many ppl refer to nirvana as peace, cessation, some type of stillness, a no-more-thought, no-more-activity kind of place, or state, and he and I are not the only ones to think along these lines... i think what he means by "to enter into meditation on the mahayana path" means to become a bodhisattva, in the "airy-fairy" sense, remaining throughout countless incarnations for the happiness and welfare of others and deferring nirvana until all beings are liberated, which is the bodhisattva vow, or part of it, at least... IF I can remember which sutra I have seen this in myself i will post it, I think it's chinese...

once nirvana is attained, in theory at least, there is no more return, yet, some ppl think bodhisattvas (the top notch ones at least) can not go onto this end, but hang around, etc, but for him to meditate on the path means there would be some aspect of the bodhisattva which remained, and so he would not truely be in nirvana...?

I agree with him there...

u have heard of the classification of the different buddhist types yes, such as hearers, solitary realisers, arhats, etc, well, some mahayanists believe that these hinayanists eventually become mahayanists, and emphasise the superiority of the mahayana path in this way, but to do this means their nirvana has remainders, and then nirvana is not peace, but there is still some aspect of self there, which nirvana does not allow... technically, at least, if nirvana is peace, and the truth of cessation (the third noble truth) is correct...

how can there be a nirvana with remainder? curious, that one...

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Francis king,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Francis king

vajradhara... 'airy fairy-ness' referred to my dislike of some mahayanists emphasis on the more "airy fairy" aspects of the path, such as "bodhisattvas who save the world", and an over emphasis on "loving all beings like their mothers"... that was what "airy fairy" was supposed to refer to... I've mentioned it before, in other threads... thought ppl would get me- sorry all..

hmm.. so.. you dislike the method for teaching a being how to generate equaniminity, i.e. viewing all sentient beings as their mothers?

personally, i do not have a difficult time with the generation of compassion so these teachings are not all that useful to me whereas the generation of wisdom is quite difficult. that said, for other beings the opposite is true and so i find the teachings on generation of equaniminity useful.

...i did not say that the mahayana was a bad path, that was ur intimation, not mine...

nor did i say that you did and i did not intimate such from your post.

and no, I was not assuming that all mahayana schools teach in the same (yes, oftentime abysmal) fashion, again, that was ur inference...

i could not tell since you simply referenced "Mahayana" as an overarching term.... perhaps you meant to be indicating a specific school of philosophy or practice within the Mahayana?

...i assumed u would know what the sambhogakaya is, but no, so... sambhogakaya is the "(sam)complete (or perfect) enjoyment (bhoga) body(kaya)" of the Buddha, the part which some Mahayanists believe remains still, in a state of perpetual bliss even now, without decay... the sambhogakaya is just one aspect of the three bodies of the buddha- the dharmakaya and the nirmanakaya being the other two...

yes, i'm aware of the idea

so.. what is an "enjoyment body" of a Buddha?

yes, products, as in.... all objects, concepts, etc, far from a narrow transliteration... all thing except Ultimate Truth, in fact...

this statment seems to indicatethat all things are products yet does not seem to acknowledge that causes are, equally, impermanent. phenomena, whether cause or product are impermenant and i'm unaware of any philsophical school within Buddhism that does not uphold this teaching. as you probably know, the Zen/Ch'an school (perhaps being the most popular in the West) starts each day with a recitation of the Heart Sutra wherein it is explicitly mentioned that "all forms are emptiness and emtpiness is form".

just seems like a strange statement to make to my mind.

personally, i believe that all products ARE impermanent- what was Buddha if he wasn't a body? a product? although yes, perhaps his "complete enjoyment body" does remain beyond his body, still... maybe... but would that not mean he remained..? after death? can he do this? if so, how? why..?

Buddha is a title not a being, per se. when asked how a being should classify a Tathagata (Thus gone or Thus come) the Buddha Shakyamuni explained that there is no method by which a Buddha can be classified as they no longer depend upon external supports by which such classifications can be made and to speak of such is to miss the, as the Chinese say, eye of the work.

to say that a bodhisattva proceeds from joy to joy contradicts the second seal, that all contaminated things are miserable, I agree, does not really describe what duhkha is... duhkha, as we know, means- misery or misfortune, oftentimes described as suffering...

but it is more than simply suffering as well.. that is taking only a negative view towards it.. dukkha is also feelings of love and happiness, plesasure and exhiliration.. in short, dukkha is the entire range of emotive responses that are products of the unawakened mind.

the origin of suffering, we are told, is trsna, attachment

generally speaking Tanha is tranlisterated as "craving" which indicates a deeper enmeshing than attachment may.. in any event, i wouldn't disagree with this notion.

what is a bodhisattva? really? according to most mahayanists a bodhisattva is a higher order of being

really? the Suttas do not really indicate that as such.. well.. perhaps that is the natural inference but it doesn't seem to be warranted. the Sutras state that a Bodhisattva is a being that has vowed to help others attain Nirvana and to forestall their entry into Nirvana without remainder.

... but only according to the mahayanists- to translate it, it becomes- "bodhi- awake- sat-being-tva-I" or, to be a bodhisattva means "to be awake to the self"-

interesting.. i would parse the terms somewhat differently and conclude that the term means "a being which is awake"

it does not mean u are a holy transcendental being-

agreed.

although today it is often presented as such, and such beings are said to generate the four immeasurables, one of which is boundless joy... however, being awake to the self does not mean that one is not still contaminated with the afflictions, does it? so maybe theres something in this...

correct. Awakening does not mean that one has set down the fetters nor, for that matter, does attainment of Arhatship. according to the Suttas, only a being that enters Nibbana without remainder can be said to have set down the fetters and will no longer take rebirth in any realm.

...many ppl refer to nirvana as peace, cessation, some type of stillness, a no-more-thought, no-more-activity kind of place, or state, and he and I are not the only ones to think along these lines...

no, indeed you are not alone in this thought. yet, the Buddha describes Nirvana in both positive and negative terms as the "stillness which proceeds stillness" and as the "activity which proceeds activity" as when Arhants and Bodhisattvas engage in activities for the befit of sentient beings.

i think what he means by "to enter into meditation on the mahayana path" means to become a bodhisattva, in the "airy-fairy" sense, remaining throughout countless incarnations for the happiness and welfare of others and deferring nirvana until all beings are liberated, which is the bodhisattva vow, or part of it, at least... IF I can remember which sutra I have seen this in myself i will post it, I think it's chinese...

you can find it in the Chinese and Tibetan canons, iirc.

once nirvana is attained, in theory at least, there is no more return, yet, some ppl think bodhisattvas (the top notch ones at least) can not go onto this end, but hang around, etc, but for him to meditate on the path means there would be some aspect of the bodhisattva which remained, and so he would not truely be in nirvana...?

the Buddha Shakyamuni described his own previous arising as a Bodhisattva in the Suttas so this is well within what we'd expect to see. further, there are two main experiences of Nibbana which the Buddha describes, with and without remainder and, it seems, that this is a rather fine point within Buddhist philosophical thought.

some mahayanists believe that these hinayanists eventually become mahayanists, and emphasise the superiority of the mahayana path in this way,

that is what the Suttas relate though to think of one as superior seems to be, in my mind, rather missing the point.. it seems more organic to me than that.. like the state of a solid, gas or liquid wherein they are all different forms of the same substance.

but to do this means their nirvana has remainders, and then nirvana is not peace, but there is still some aspect of self there, which nirvana does not allow... technically, at least, if nirvana is peace, and the truth of cessation (the third noble truth) is correct...

how can there be a nirvana with remainder? curious, that one...

Nirvana can be peace whilst there are remainders which the Suttas seem to be quite clear upon:

"Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property. Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining.

And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the pleasant & the unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with fuel remaining.

And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished, will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining."

These two proclaimed by the one with vision,
Unbinding properties
the one independent,
the one who is Such:
one property, here in this life
with fuel remaining
from the destruction of craving,
the guide to becoming,
and that with no fuel remaining,
after this life, in which all becoming
totally ceases.

Those who know
this state uncompounded,
their minds released
through the destruction of craving,
the guide to becoming,
they, attaining the Teaching's core,
delighting in ending,
have abandoned all becoming:
they, the Such.

Iti 28-49

metta,
~v

[Francis king]

cheers for the link vajradhara...

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Francis king,

thank you for the post.



hmm.. so.. you dislike the method for teaching a being how to generate equaniminity, i.e. viewing all sentient beings as their mothers?

personally, i do not have a difficult time with the generation of compassion so these teachings are not all that useful to me whereas the generation of wisdom is quite difficult. that said, for other beings the opposite is true and so i find the teachings on generation of equaniminity useful.



nor did i say that you did and i did not intimate such from your post.



i could not tell since you simply referenced "Mahayana" as an overarching term.... perhaps you meant to be indicating a specific school of philosophy or practice within the Mahayana?



yes, i'm aware of the idea

so.. what is an "enjoyment body" of a Buddha?



this statment seems to indicatethat all things are products yet does not seem to acknowledge that causes are, equally, impermanent. phenomena, whether cause or product are impermenant and i'm unaware of any philsophical school within Buddhism that does not uphold this teaching. as you probably know, the Zen/Ch'an school (perhaps being the most popular in the West) starts each day with a recitation of the Heart Sutra wherein it is explicitly mentioned that "all forms are emptiness and emtpiness is form".

just seems like a strange statement to make to my mind.



Buddha is a title not a being, per se. when asked how a being should classify a Tathagata (Thus gone or Thus come) the Buddha Shakyamuni explained that there is no method by which a Buddha can be classified as they no longer depend upon external supports by which such classifications can be made and to speak of such is to miss the, as the Chinese say, eye of the work.



but it is more than simply suffering as well.. that is taking only a negative view towards it.. dukkha is also feelings of love and happiness, plesasure and exhiliration.. in short, dukkha is the entire range of emotive responses that are products of the unawakened mind.



generally speaking Tanha is tranlisterated as "craving" which indicates a deeper enmeshing than attachment may.. in any event, i wouldn't disagree with this notion.



really? the Suttas do not really indicate that as such.. well.. perhaps that is the natural inference but it doesn't seem to be warranted. the Sutras state that a Bodhisattva is a being that has vowed to help others attain Nirvana and to forestall their entry into Nirvana without remainder.



interesting.. i would parse the terms somewhat differently and conclude that the term means "a being which is awake"



agreed.



correct. Awakening does not mean that one has set down the fetters nor, for that matter, does attainment of Arhatship. according to the Suttas, only a being that enters Nibbana without remainder can be said to have set down the fetters and will no longer take rebirth in any realm.



no, indeed you are not alone in this thought. yet, the Buddha describes Nirvana in both positive and negative terms as the "stillness which proceeds stillness" and as the "activity which proceeds activity" as when Arhants and Bodhisattvas engage in activities for the befit of sentient beings.



you can find it in the Chinese and Tibetan canons, iirc.



the Buddha Shakyamuni described his own previous arising as a Bodhisattva in the Suttas so this is well within what we'd expect to see. further, there are two main experiences of Nibbana which the Buddha describes, with and without remainder and, it seems, that this is a rather fine point within Buddhist philosophical thought.




that is what the Suttas relate though to think of one as superior seems to be, in my mind, rather missing the point.. it seems more organic to me than that.. like the state of a solid, gas or liquid wherein they are all different forms of the same substance.



Nirvana can be peace whilst there are remainders which the Suttas seem to be quite clear upon:

"Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property. Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining.

And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the pleasant & the unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with fuel remaining.

And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished, will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining."

These two proclaimed by the one with vision,
Unbinding properties
the one independent,
the one who is Such:
one property, here in this life
with fuel remaining
from the destruction of craving,
the guide to becoming,
and that with no fuel remaining,
after this life, in which all becoming
totally ceases.

Those who know
this state uncompounded,
their minds released
through the destruction of craving,
the guide to becoming,
they, attaining the Teaching's core,
delighting in ending,
have abandoned all becoming:
they, the Such.

Iti 28-49

metta,
~v

Alright, if I am interpretting this correctly, the "fuel remaining" to a Bodhisattva is the compassion for those who are not awakened. Awakening beings is the "proceeding from joy to joy." When all beings are awakened, then there will be none left to cause this compassion, therefore the Bodhisattva will go to the stage of "with no fuel remaining."

Do I have this straight?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Alright, if I am interpretting this correctly, the "fuel remaining" to a Bodhisattva is the compassion for those who are not awakened. Awakening beings is the "proceeding from joy to joy." When all beings are awakened, then there will be none left to cause this compassion, therefore the Bodhisattva will go to the stage of "with no fuel remaining."

Do I have this straight?

this is, of course, subject to my own understanding..

from what i have read the "with fuel remaining" is a phrase used to denote beings which, though having set down the fetters, still have a fundamental and deep seated sense of "I" in which distinctions such as 'pleasant/unpleasant' still have conceptual relevance. the operative phrase in the first description is: ...His five sense faculties still remain ....

the "fuel without remainder" is used to denote a being that has uprooted even the most fundamental and deep seated aspects of ego which impute "I". the operative phrase in the second description is:...all that is sensed, being unrelished, will grow cold right here...

metta,

~v

[Nick the Pilot]

Vajradhara and Seattlegal,

Let me give my interpretation of the "with fuel remaining" phrase. I agree that the egotistical "I" partially remains, preventing a Bodhisattva from moving on. There is another factor — Karma. I believe a Bodhisattva cannot move on until they have burned off all their bad karma.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Vajradhara and Seattlegal,

Let me give my interpretation of the "with fuel remaining" phrase. I agree that the egotistical "I" partially remains, preventing a Bodhisattva from moving on. There is another factor — Karma. I believe a Bodhisattva cannot move on until they have burned off all their bad karma.

Would this Karma be their Bodhisattva vow?

[Nick the Pilot]

Seattle,

No. In my belief system, whether a person takes a Bodhisattva vow and remains on Earth, or chooses to move on to Nirvana has nothing to do with good or bad karma. The way I see it, all karma is burned off before a person is given a choice to be an Earth-remaining Bodhisattva. Therefore, I do not see making a Bodhisattva Vow to be connected to karma at all.

[Francis king]

fuel here I would say is consciousness, definately...