Does this dog have a buddha-nature? No.
Doctrinally Pure Land Buddhism teaches an outer buddha, Zen an inner buddha. Practically both teaches to rely completely on buddha. Complete reliance on buddha means not relying on my concepts, my views. That is because believing that I can solve it is wrong. People tend to mistake this for giving in to one's impulses, however, that is pretty much the opposite of not giving in to my ideas. That's why with such faith one also has to understand that this samsara is the place of suffering. This samsara is nothing but my hanging on to looking for happiness in impermanent things. The buddha, being inconceivable, is eternal. Relying on what is inconceivable is indeed non-reliance. Not trusting anything is neither opposing nor embracing but letting go without the intention of letting go. So it is also called the self-liberating of defilements. This no effort is definitely the greatest effort, because there's always the view one has to do something.
Somebody asked, "All buddhas have a teacher, don't they?"
The teacher said, "They have."
"Who is their teacher?"
"Amita Buddha! Amita Buddha!"
(Recorded Sayings of Zhaozhou, 269)
17.4.11
Does Buddha Exist?
One of the dividing doctrines between Mahayana and Theravada is the question of the buddhas' existence beyond parinirvana. Mahayana takes the position that their functioning is present eternally while Theravada believes they don't.
The Mahayanasamgraha gives two reasons for the buddhas' eternal function: suchness, the essence of Dharmakaya, is unborn and undying, and the vows to liberate all beings could not be fulfilled if they stopped working. The Theravada takes the position that there is no functioning after parinirvana based on the teaching of nirvana without residue, the dissolution of aggregates.
It is easy to create a duality here as if they took extreme positions, existence for Mahayana and annihilation for Theravada. However, Buddhism is the path of the middle way so it is better to abandon such divisive thinking and take a closer look.
Suchness is inconceivable so there is no point in saying that it has any particulars to differentiate buddhas, thus the concept of a single dharmakaya that can be called dharmadhatu. What makes the rupakaya of buddhas is from the vows. Such appearance is perceivable based only on the individual's mind. This is true even for the nirmanakaya as only those with proper karma can meet a buddha. So there is the teaching that a buddha should not be conceived as a body, mind or attribute. Consequently whatever function of a buddha one may perceive is a mental construct.
Theravada simply states that if a buddha is gone it's gone forever and beings can make no contact with him. We can say that they take the teaching of dharmakaya only but not that of the rupakaya. But since the rupakaya is not the real buddha it is an upaya in Mahayana. It should also be noted that the word buddha is used differently, while in Mahayana it becomes ultimately a synonym for ultimate reality in Theravada it remains a title of a person.
The Mahayanasamgraha gives two reasons for the buddhas' eternal function: suchness, the essence of Dharmakaya, is unborn and undying, and the vows to liberate all beings could not be fulfilled if they stopped working. The Theravada takes the position that there is no functioning after parinirvana based on the teaching of nirvana without residue, the dissolution of aggregates.
It is easy to create a duality here as if they took extreme positions, existence for Mahayana and annihilation for Theravada. However, Buddhism is the path of the middle way so it is better to abandon such divisive thinking and take a closer look.
Suchness is inconceivable so there is no point in saying that it has any particulars to differentiate buddhas, thus the concept of a single dharmakaya that can be called dharmadhatu. What makes the rupakaya of buddhas is from the vows. Such appearance is perceivable based only on the individual's mind. This is true even for the nirmanakaya as only those with proper karma can meet a buddha. So there is the teaching that a buddha should not be conceived as a body, mind or attribute. Consequently whatever function of a buddha one may perceive is a mental construct.
Theravada simply states that if a buddha is gone it's gone forever and beings can make no contact with him. We can say that they take the teaching of dharmakaya only but not that of the rupakaya. But since the rupakaya is not the real buddha it is an upaya in Mahayana. It should also be noted that the word buddha is used differently, while in Mahayana it becomes ultimately a synonym for ultimate reality in Theravada it remains a title of a person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
