Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Wisdom23

To be honest i am a huge scheptic at times but the teachings in this sutra seem reasonable. I mean finding your buddha nature ( bigging up your good qualities and diminishing the bad) seems a good goal to aim for, right?

I would just like to ask what other peoples opinion of this is and how they have gone about finding the buddha nature.

All the best Buddhist homies.

kashi

In short...and i do mean very short cuz I could tell some long boring stories.. ..the Buddha was a human being and he became enlightened ....i too am a human being.
Therefore Buddha nature.

fivebells

Which version of the sutra?

Florian

This sutra seems reasonable? Which of them are not reasonable?

Dakini

The think about the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is that it introduces ideas that sound perilously close to a "permanent" Buddhanature, something that could be (and sometimes is) interpreted as a "soul". The Buddha is said to dwell "permanently" in a Buddha heaven, the idea of a higher Self is introduced, that is beyond the mundane self and no-self concepts. For these reasons, some scholars say the Parinirvana Sutra is a later addition to the canon that shows Hindu influences, and therefore isn't what the Buddha taught.

However, these teachings really work for some people, so I say--whatever works!

btw, do you have a link to the Sutra?

riverflow

I have this Sutra, though I have yet to read it--I'm quite certain it is not a historical record of "what the Buddha actually said" but that is true of most Mahayana texts I'm sure (though historical accuracy does not de-value the text, IMO -- as if historical authenticity is the only factor in determining the validity of a text).

Regarding "buddha nature": when I first encountered this talk of "buddha nature" I thought it also to be a backdoor to sneak an essential "self" back into Buddhism which made little sense to me. However, from what I have read since that first encounter with it, my understanding is that "buddha nature" refers to a sentient being's capacity to awaken, not a kind of metaphysical "essence." I wonder if part of the problem is the translation into English of this term...?

Jeffrey

The whole notion of a canon is part and parcel with the notion of the majority faction cut out pieces. Buddhas sangha probably had a heterogenius mixture. People were of different backgrounds. In christianity some gospels were cut out where I believe one or more of those said Jesus had an intimate relationship with Mary Magdalene.

I believe the Mahayana goes back to a heterogenious sangha. There must have been. Just as there is now. Anyway my teacher traces our lineage right back to the Buddha. All of mahayana basically believes in a true self even if they call it bodhicitta. It's the same thing.

Dakini

riverflow said:

I have this Sutra, though I have yet to read it--I'm quite certain it is not a historical record of "what the Buddha actually said" but that is true of most Mahayana texts I'm sure (though historical accuracy does not de-value the text, IMO -- as if historical authenticity is the only factor in determining the validity of a text).

Regarding "buddha nature": when I first encountered this talk of "buddha nature" I thought it also to be a backdoor to sneak an essential "self" back into Buddhism which made little sense to me. However, from what I have read since that first encounter with it, my understanding is that "buddha nature" refers to a sentient being's capacity to awaken, not a kind of metaphysical "essence." I wonder if part of the problem is the translation into English of this term...?

Yes, that's how buddhanature is usually explained; the inherent capacity we all have to evolve into a Buddha. However, the Sutra goes on to introduce the concept of True Self, which is something that's realized AFTER students have abandoned ego-clinging. It's presented as the Buddha's final teaching on the topic of "self", for those who have already gone beyond mundane self. And there's an implication that this True Self continues to exist after death, as the Buddha's described as permanently abiding (in his True Self) in Nirvana or Buddha heaven.

It's really quite fascinating. I think it's up to each practitioner/student to decide whether these teachings are helpful or not. Take it or leave it. But these components of the Sutra taken as a whole make an interesting study.

lobster

Personally I do not experience a difference between 'emptiness of self' and 'suchness of self'. They do not live on . . . because they are unborn.

The Buddha Nature is not a Self. It is the absence of suchness or the fulfilment of emptiness. Refinement is essential but the Buddha Nature is not perfected.

These guys will question your sense of self . . .
http://www.liberationunleashed.com/

John_Spencer

lobster said:

These guys will question your sense of self . . .
http://www.liberationunleashed.com/

You gotta love a website that starts with such a l disclaimer: "The method of inquiry used on this site may actually work, unlike many spiritual practices. It will likely change how you regard your self, your relationships, and your world. Neither you nor we can predict how this will turn out for you."

Florian

I cannot speak from knowledge but I suspect that the true-self/no true-self debate is subject to the usual ambiguities of the doctrine of two truths, and that in a way there is a true self and in way there is not, depending on what we mean, the profundity of the context etc etc. But I'm happy to wait to find out, it's a speculation too far for me.

But then, I'm a firm believer in Lao Tzu's pronouncement that true words seem paradoxical, so would not be likely to adopt an extreme view on this or any other issue.

Dakini

Florian said:

I cannot speak from knowledge but I suspect that the true-self/no true-self debate is subject to the usual ambiguities of the doctrine of two truths, and that in a way there is a true self and in way there is not, depending on what we mean, the profundity of the context etc etc. But I'm happy to wait to find out, it's a speculation too far for me.

The Mahaparinirvana Sutra is above "the usual ambiguities of two truths". That's why it's pretty radical, and also somewhat suspect as being an authentic teaching of the Buddha. Anyway, it says that after the student has understood the teachings on self and no-self, and has abandoned clinging to the mundane self, then s/he's ready to receive the teaching on the ultimate truth, which is True Self/Buddhanature, or what might be called the Enlightened Self.

The Sutra also says that once Enlightenment is reached, it's irrevocable. So it becomes a permanent state. Which is a very interesting statement in itself.

Florian

Interesting. I've always casually assumed that the state is irrevocable, but it's not something I've given much thought.

Is it possible for a sutra to be 'above' the doctrine of two truths? I'm dubious.

person

The gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism is the most philosophical sect and generally follows the madhyamika school of emptiness. They reject the notion of a true Self and interpret the Buddhanature in terms of beings innate capacity to be enlightened rather than a subtle essence of some sort. This view is known and rangtong.

The more contemplative traditions, which focus more on the direct experience, will often talk about Buddhanature more in terms of a true Self, this view is known as shentong.

I like what Dudjom Rinpoche said about the distinction.

"The Madhyamaka of the Prasangika and the Svatantrika is the coarse, Outer Madhyamaka. It should indeed be expressed by those who profess well-informed intelligence during debates with extremist Outsiders, during the composition of great treatises, and while establishing texts which concern supreme reasoning. However, when the subtle, inner Madhyamaka is experientially cultivated, one should meditate on the nature of Yogacara- Madhyamaka."

Jeffrey

Shentong says that everything is ungraspable including the self and that our problem comes from grasping. Shen means 'other' and 'rang' means self.

Jeffrey

Mahamudra talks about the qualities of awareness that are already there and these are the 'heart essence' or bodhicitta. Some of the energies that are already there are: wanting to know, wanting it all, wanting to feel, wanting to do, wanting to be. These are always with us and they can be distorted or not or perhaps some people call it skillful and non-skillful. Presumably even a Buddha feels and knows, but not sure if 'wanting' is the right word for a Buddha. It is probably beyond language.

lobster

Mahamudra/dzogchen and Zen, these are the rafts with outboard motors.

Find the Buddha Nature. Get to the Far shore.

Women and Lobsters first. Abandon ship. Ignore the drowning children . . . unless you are a drowning child . . . in which case, drown quietly and with a smile . . . :clap: