Nirvana and Samsara 涅槃與輪迴 5

Cont'd

Does the Buddha exist at all times? If so, in what sense does he do so? This has sparked a lot of controversies and discussions. There are scholars who hold opposite views.

(1) On the one hand, there is evidence that in Mahayana Mahaparinnirvana Sutra  the Buddha has said that one of the 4 essential elements of nirvana is self (atman), construed as the "enduring Self of the Buddha". According to William Edward Soothhill and Lewis Hodous:  "The Nirvana Sutra claims for nirvana the ancient ideas of permanence, bliss, personality, purity in the transcendental realm. Mahayana declares that Hinayana, by denying personality in the transcendental realm, denies the existence of Buddha. In Mahayana, final nirvana is both mundane and transcendental, and is used as a term for the Absolute.".(A Dictionary
of Chinese Buddhist Terms 1997 328,)
(2) But many Buddhists believe that the buddhas are at all times in nirvana but that their corporeal displays are "ultimately illusory". :
     (a)  According to Paul Williams (Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations1989 100), at the time the text was written, there was already a long tradition of positive language about nirvāna and the Buddha.The Mahaparinirvana Sutra (涅槃經) refers to the Buddha using the term "Self" to win over non-Buddhist ascetics. The Buddha is reported to have said " The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self..For the sake of guiding sentient beings, I describe it as the self" (Youru Wang Linguistic Strategies in Daoist Zhuanggzi and Chan Buddhism: The other way of Speaking 2003 58). Paul Williams is against giving a traditional "substance" to the tathatagarbha: He says: " it is tempting to speak of Hindu influence on Buddhism at this point, but simply to talk of influences is almost always too easy...Having said that, of course, the Mahaparinirvana-Sutra itself admits Hindu influence in a sense when it refers to the Buddha using the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to think in particular of the transcendental Self-Brahman of Advaita Vedanta as necessarily influencing Buddhism at this point. It is by no means clear that the Self which is really no-Self of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is at all comparably to the Advaita
Brahman, and anyway these tathagatagarbha sutras are earlier than Gaudapada (seventh century), the founder of the Hindu Advaita  school..."( op cit 100)
     (b) Other scholars also believe that language used in the sutras can be viewed as attempts to state the orthodox Buddhist teachings of dependent origination using positive language to prevent people from being turned away from Buddhism by a false impression of it being a nihilist doctrine. All that the Buddha
was doing to was to use the old positive essentialist language of Indian philosophy in a "new" way to describe a being who has successfully completed the Buddhist path. (The Doctrine of Buddha-Nature is impeccably Buddhist (http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/nlar/pdf Pruning%20the%20bodhi%20tree/Pruning%209.pdf  pp 1-6)
      (c) Still other scholars like Heng-Ching Shih, believe that the "Self" there, does not represent a "substantial Self" and the "positive" language merely encourage people to accept the emptiness of the old "self" and the potentiality of people to realize Buddhahood through the relevant Buddhist practices. The Buddha's
intention of teaching the tathagatagarbha or Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical. ( See Heng-Ching Shih "The Significance of 'Tathagatagarbha'--a Positive Expression of Sunyata" (http://zencomp.com/greatwisdom/ebud/ebdha191.htm at Zen Computer Systems).
     (d) This view is also supported by the Ratnagotravibhaga, a related text, which also said that his teaching about the tathagatagarbha is intended to win sentient beings over to abandoning "afffection for oneself", one of the five defects caused by non-Buddhist teaching.
     (e) Youru Wang also supports this viewpoint by noting similar language in Lankavatara Sutra. He says, "Noticing the context is important. It will help us avoid jumping to to the conclusion that tathagatagarbha thought is simply another case of metaphysical imagination." (Youru Wang op cit. 58)
(3) (a) But Kosho Yamamoto disagrees and quotes the sutra in support "Due to various causes and conditions, I have also taught that that which is the self is devoid of self, for though there is truly the self, I have taught that there is no self, and yet there is no falsehood in that. The Buddha-dhatu is devoid of self. When the Tathagata teachers that there is no self, it is because of the Eternal. The Tathagata is the Self, and his teaching that there is no self is because he has attained
mastery/sovereignty [aisvarya]" (The Mahayana Mahparinirvana Sutra in 3 Volumes 1975 Vol. 3 660) He writes in Mahayanism: A Critical exposition of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra 1973 141 142) " He says that the non-Self which he once taught is none but of expediency...He says that he is now ready to speak about the undisclosed teachings. Men abide upside down thoughts. So he will now speak of the affirmative attributes of nirvāna, which are none other than the Eternal Bliss, Bliss, the Self and the Pure." Yamamoto believes that this "affirmative" characterization of nirvāna relates to a higher form of nirvāna--the Great Nirvāna. He cites in support the chapter entitled "Boddhsattva Highly Virtuous King" in the Nirvāna Sutra: "What is nirvāna?...this is as in the case in which one who has hunger has peace and bliss as he has taken a little food." (Yamamoto op cit 165). He adds, "But such a nirvana cannot be called 'Great Nirvāna" And it (ie. the Buddha's new revelation regarding nirvana) goes on to dwell on the "Great Self', "Great Bliss' and "Great Purity' all of which, along with the Eternal, constitute the four attributes of the Great Nirvāna." (ibid).
  (b) Mahaparinirvana Sutra states that there are three ways for a person to have something: in the past, in the present and in the future. What it means by "all beings have Buddha-nature" is that all beings will in future become buddhas (Heng Ching Shih (op cit)  But Dogen (道元襌師) explicitly says that the Buddha-Nature is had in some sense in the present even by non-Buddhas: actually equating the reality of the present moment (or that without constancy) with the Buddha- Nature, including that of grass and trees as well as mind and body. For Dogen, to look at anything is to see the Buddha-Nature, whereas Chinul agrees that it is in the body right now as smelling and vision and so on. The important Lankavatara Sutra states that all actions are actions of the Buddha-nature, that it is their cause and the root of karmic eternity. It is obvious that for Dogen, Buddha-Nature is interpreted very broadly. It is not a "potential" for Buddhahood but is "the nature all things".  All things in their impermanence are seen as Buddha-Nature. Masao Abe writes on it this way: " ..in Dogen's understanding, the Buddha-Nature is not a potentiality, like a seed, that exists within all sentient beings. Instead, all sentient beings, or more exactly, all beings, living and non-living, are originally Buddha-Nature. It is not a potentiality to be actualized some time in the future, but the original, fundamental nature of all beings.... Dogen broadens not only the meaning of the term Buddha-Nature, but also that of the term, sentient beings (shujo). In the "Bussho" fascicle, immediately after saying "Whole-being is the Buddha-nature," he continues, "I call one integral entity of whole-being "sentient beings"...This means that Dogen broadens the meaning of shujo [sentient being] which traditionally referred to living or sentient beings, to include nonliving or non-sentient beings, In other words, he ascribes life to nonliving things, sentiments to non-sentient beings and ultimately mind and the Buddha-nature to all of them  " ( Masao Abe  (ed. Steven Heine A Study of Dogen: His Philosophy and Religion   1992 57)
4. Jamie Hubbard talks of the tendency towards absolutism and monism in this Tathagatagarbha, which the Japanese scholar Matsumoto thinks un-Buddhist, and says: " Matsumoto calls attention to the similarity between the extreme positive language and causal structure of enlightenment found in the tathagatagarbha literature and that of the substantial monism found the atman/Brahman tradition. Matsumoto, of course, is not the only one to have noted this resemblance. Takasaki Jikido, for example, the pre-eiminent scholar of the tathagatagarbha tradition, see monism in the doctrine of tathagatagarbha and the Mahayana in general...Obermiller wedded this notion of a monistic Absolute to the tathagatagarbha literature in his translation and comments to the Ratnagotra, which he aptly subtitled, 'A Manual of Buddhist Monism'...Lamotte and Frauwallner have seen the tathagatagarbha doctrine as diametrically opposed to the Madhyamika (中觀論) and representing something akin to the monism of the atman/Brahman strain, while yet others such as Nagao, Seyfort Ruegg, and Johnston (the editor of
Ratnagotra) simply voice their doubts and state that it seems similar to post-Vedic forms of monism. Yet another camp, represented by Yamaguchi Susumu and his student Ogawa Ichijo, is able to understand tathagatagarbha thought without recourse to Vedic notions by putting it squarely within the Buddhist tradition of conditioned causality and emptiness, which, of course, explicitly rejects monism of any sort. Obviously, the question of the monist absolutist nature of the
tathagatagarbha and Buddha-nature tradition is complex." (Absolute Delusion, Perfect Buddhahood 2001 99-100) Hubbard concludes: "the teaching of the tathagatagarbha has always been debatable, for it is fundamentally an affirmative approach to truth and wisdom, offering descriptions of reality not in negative terms of what it is lacking or empty of (apophatic description, typical of the Perfection of Wisdom corpus and the Madhyamika school) but rather in positive terms of what it is cataphatic description, more typical of the devotional Tantric, Mahaparinirvana and Lotus Sutra traditions, and it should be noted, the monistic terms of the orthodox Brahmanic systems'"  (Op cit 120-121).

In this regard, we may note that according to many Buddhist conventions, the Buddha may have three types of existence traditionally called kayas or bodies (身). According to the Trikāya doctrine (Sanskrit "Three bodies") ( 三身), which was established by the fourth century, a Buddha has three kāyas or bodies: the nirmānakāya or created body( 應身) which manifests in time and space; the saṃbhogakāya or body of mutual enjoyment (報身) which is a body of bliss or clear light manifestation) and the Dharmakāya or Truth body or reality body (法身, 真如) which embodies the very principle of enlightenment and knows no limits or boundaries.In the view of Anuyoga, the "mindstream" (意識流) (Sanskrit citta santana) is the 'continuity' (Sanskrit: santana; Wylie: rgyud) that links the Trikaya.The Trikāya, as a triune, is symbolised by the Gankyil.  The Gautama Buddha that we know was merely the 29th Buddha who appeared in our age, according to the Pali Canon, there being 28 before him. All Buddhas are said to have the 32 major marks, and the 80 minor marks of a superior being such marks not always physical but are talked about as if they were bodily features. They include the "ushnisha" or a bump on the top of the head; hair tightly curled; a white tuft of hair between the eyes, long arms that reach to their knees, long fingers and toes that are webbed; his penis is completely covered by his foreskin; images of an eight-spoked wheel on the soles of their feet etc. and another mark is that they all teach the identical Dharma. In the Digha Nikaya (pali)(長尼伽耶 or 長阿含經》，(分為三品：《戒蘊品》、《大品》和《波梨品》) D.N 27.9 of Pali Canon, the Buddha told Vasettha that the Tathagata (a term he used to refer to himself) was Dharmakāya or "Truth body" or the "embodiment of truth" as well as Dharmabhuta, 'Truth-become', that is, 'One who has become Truth' On another occasion, when Ven. Vakkali, who was ill, wanted to see the Buddha before he died from old age it was recorded in the the Samyutta Nikaya (雜尼伽耶 or雜長阿含經, 分為五品：有偈品，因緣品、犍度品、六處品、大品，共有五十六集) (SN 22.87) that "...and the Buddha comforts him, "Enough, Vakkali. Why do you want to
see this filthy body? Whoever sees the Dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the Dhamma." and in this same text, the term Putikaya 度meaning "decomposing" body is distinguished from the eternal Dhamma body of the Buddha and of course the Bodhisattva body. It was only later that doctrine of the Tathagatgarbha was developed in Mahayana Buddhism and also the idea of the Sambhogakāya, conceptually between the Rāpakāya, now renamed Nirmānakāya, and the Dharmakāya. Different schools have different ideas about what the three bodies are like. From the point of view of Pure Land,, the Nirmaṇakāya is a physical body of a Buddha e.g that of the Gautama Buddha,the Sambhogakāya is the reward-body, whereby a bodhisattva completes his vows and becomes a Buddha Amitabha,(阿彌佗佛 )Vajrasattva (金剛觀薩埵)及and Manjushri (文殊菩薩) are examples of Buddhas with the Sambhogakaya body and the Dhamakaya,which is the embodiment of the truth itself and is commonly seen as transcending the forms of physical and spiritual bodies.Vairocana Buddha 毗盧(舍)折那佛, 盧舍那佛,遮那佛 or Mahavairocana (大日如來) is often depicted as the incomprehensible Dharmakāya, particularly in esoteric Buddhist schools such as Shingon (真言宗) and Kegon (華嚴宗) in Japan.The Three Bodies of the Buddha from the point of view of Zen Buddhist thought are not to be taken as absolute, literal, or materialistic; they are merely expedient means that  "are merely names or props" and only the play of light and shadow of the mind. "Do you wish to be not different from the Buddhas and patriarchs? Then
just do not look for anything outside. The pure light of your own heart [i.e., 心, mind] at this instant is the Dharmakaya Buddha in your own house. The non-differentiating light of your heart at this instant is the Sambhogakaya Buddha in your own house. The non-discriminating light of your own heart at this instant is the Nirmanakaya Buddha in your own house. This trinity of the Buddha's body is none other than he here before your eyes, listening to my expounding the Dharma.Vajrayana sometimes refers to a fourth body, called the Svabhavikakaya meaning essential body,the unity or non-separateness of the three kayas.The term Svabhavikakaya is also known in Gelug or Genden (格魯派 or 噶丹派), one of the four main sects in Tibetan Buddhism, where it is one of the assumed two aspects of dharmakaya: Essence
Body/Svabhavikakaya and Wisdom Body or Body of Gnosis/Jnanakaya. Haribhadra claims, that Abhismaylamkra chapter 8 is describing Buddhahood through four kayas: svabhavikakaya, [jnana]dharmakaya, sambhogikakaya and nairmanikakaya. In dzogchen's teachings, "dharmakaya" means the buddha-nature's absence of self-nature, that is, its emptiness of a conceptualizable essence, its cognizance or clarity is the sambhogakaya, and the fact that its
capacity is 'suffused with self-existing awareness' is the nirmanakaya.The interpretation in Mahmudra is similar: when the mahamudra practices come to fruition, one sees that the mind and all phenomena are fundamentally empty of any identity; this emptiness is called dharmakāya. The essence of mind is seen as empty, yet having potential which takes the form of luminosity; the nature of the sambhogakāya is understood to be this luminosity. The nirmanakāya is understood to be the powerful force with which the potentiality effects living beings.In Esoteric teachings of Buddhism, it is the who refuses to pass into the Nirvanic state or "don the Dharmakaya robe and cross to the other shore", as it would then become beyond their power to assist even so little as Karma permits. They prefer to remain invisibly (in spirit so to speak) in the world, and contribute towards men's salvation by influencing them to follow the Good Law, i.e., lead them on the Path of Righteousness. It is Exoteric Buddhism that believes that Nirmanakaya simply means the physical body of Buddha, however
Esoteric Buddhism shows no such thing.It is the Nirmanakaya of Esoteric teachings that assumes when the Buddha dies, instead of going into Nirvana, he remains in that glorious body he has woven for himself, invisible to uninitiated mankind, to watch over and protect it.

How exactly does one attain wisdom or enlightenment through Zen? Though the goals of attaining nirvana remains the same for all Buddhist traditions, according to the Pali Canon, relied on by the Theravadians, there may be 6 paths. In Visudhimagga (Path of Purification) (清淨道論 )(Cap1 v. 6 (Buddhaghosa (覺音) & Nanamoli (An English monk)1999 6-7)  Buddhaghosa identifies a number of options within the Pali canon leading to nirvana:
1. by insight (vissapana) alone ( Access to Insight: Readings in Theravada Buddhism, Buddharakkhita ( a Ugandan monk) 1996 (http://www. accesstoinsight.org./tipitaka/kn/dhp.20.budd.htm#dhp-277) But in the Paramattha (highest or ultimate truth) manujusa (exposition or commentary) (Visuddhimagga's commentary) vv. 9-10, the following caveat is added: " The words, 'insight alone' are meant to exclude, not virtue etc. but serenity (ie. jhana,...[as typically reflected] in the pair serenity and insight...the word 'alone' actually excludes only that concentration with distinction...Taking this stanza as the teaching for
one whose vehicle is insight does not imply that there is no concentration,; for no insight comes about with momentary concentration. And again, insight should be understood as the three contemplations of anicca or impermanence (觀心無常), dukka or pain, suffering or unsatisfactoriness(觀受是苦) and anatta or not-self(觀法無我) [see tilakkhana or the three marks of existence (三法印)]; not contemplation of impermanence alone (Buddhaghosa & Nanamoli  750 n 3)
2. by jhana  (襌) and understanding  (http://www. accesstoinsight.org./tipitaka/kn/dhp.25.budd.htm#dhp-372)
3. by deeds, vision and righteousness (Access to Insight: Readings in Theravada Buddhism, Thanissaro (2003)(http://www. accesstoinsight.org./tipitaka/mn/mn.143.than.html#dhp-277) verse 262 is translated by Thanissaro as : " Action, clear-knowing and mental qualities, virtue, the highest way of life, through this are mortals purified, not through clan or wealth."
4. by virtue, consciousness and understanding Paragraph 1 of the Visuddhaimagga states in SN i 13: "When a wise man, established well in virtue, Develops consciousness and understanding, Then as a bhikku ardent and sagacious, He succeeds in disentangling this tangle (Buddhaghosa & Nanamoli op. cit. p 1). The
tangle refers to the tangle or network of cravings and in verse 7 Buddhaghosa states that "develops consciousness and understanding" means "develops both concentration and insight"
5. by virtue, understanding, concentration and effort. SN i 53 is translated as " He who is possessed of constant virtue, Who has understanding, and is
concentrated, Who is strenuous and diligent as well, Will cross the flood so difficult to cross" (Buddhaghosa & Nanamoli op. cit. p 7)
6. by the four foundations of mindfulness: Satipatthāna Sutta (Discourse on 4 Paths of Purification by mediation (四念住/處清淨經) DN ii 290): The Blessed One said this: " This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the disappearance of pain and distress, for the attainment of the right method and for the realization of Unbinding--in other words, the four frames of reference..." (http://www. accesstoinsight.org./tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html Verse 290)
Depending on one's analysis, each of these options could be seen as a reframing of the Buddha''s Threefold Training of virtue, mental development and wisdom.

In the Mahayana Zen tradition, a number of different approaches, methods, techniques or practices or focus of concentration in meditation are advised viz. "Focusing on  5  mental activities:, (五停心), ie. counting one's breathing (數息), focusing on one's impurity (不淨), focusing on mercy and compassion (慈悲), focusing on boundaries and distinctions (界分別);  "4 Iimitless or boundless heart/minds" (四無量心)  ie. focusing on goodness, compassion, joy and detachment or abandonment (慈悲喜捨) and "4 foci of meditation" (四念住/處) , i.e. focusing on four thoughts viz. that our body is impure, that feelings and emotions are sources of suffering, that our thoughts are transient and ever changing or non-permanent, that there is no reality in the idea of our "self" in this world or in all that appear to our mind or in the Buddhist worldview are merely relative or provisional collection or temporary coming together of co-dependent causes at the relevant time when and place where they appear ( 觀身不淨, 觀受是苦, 觀心無常. 觀法無我). If we persist in practising contemplation or meditation or reflection on such thoughts for  sufficient periods of time, then gradually we may achieve being "permanently detached" from our cravings, our lusts, our longings for or our love of or our attachment to all the material and spiritual pleasures of this world.'What happens to a person after his parnirvāna cannot be explained, as it is outside of all conceivable experience. Through a series of questions, Sariputta brings a monk to admit that he cannot pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life, so to speculate regarding the ontological status of an arahant after death is not proper. Individuals up to the level of "non-returning" may experience nirvāna as an object of mental consciousness. Certain contemplations or meditations (襌定) with nirvāṇa as an object of samādhi or complete or full concentration or meditation (三昧 or 三摩地 or 正定) lead, if developed, to the level of non-returning or the gnosis of the arahant. According to Zen Buddhism, a Zen practitioner aims to attain 9 levels of concentration i.e. 4 levels at the material domain of Zen (色界四襌) 4 levels of concentration or focusing at the non-material or formless domain (無色界四定) and finally the arahant's level of liberation concentration (解脫定). At that final point of contemplation, which is reached through a progression of insights and the constant retention in the mind of such insights, if the meditator recognizes or realizes that even that state is "constructed" i.e. formed in our own mind and therefore impermanent, the fetters will be destroyed and arahantship will be attained, and nibbāna is realized. But it is important to remember that according to Buddhist thinking, even after an arahant has attained that enlightenment, he must still keep practising meditation so that that insight will not be lost again in the hustle and bustle of daily lives. He must continue to practice meditation until that awareness can be retained in his mind without his having even to think about it or until he does not have to "remind" himself of it  i.e. until such an awareness has become fully and completely automatic and forms a "permanent" part of his waking consciousness. In that sense, since the arahant may relapse from time to time from the relevant insights, the nirvana he has achieved not yet completed and definitive. The Buddhist call this kind of awareness incomplete or imperfect (有漏). Until he achieves "permanent" automatic awareness of the illusory nature of everything in this material world including his own "self", his own attempts at achieving nirvāna, his attempts to even make distinctions about what is "Buddhist", what is not, what is good and what is not etc, his nirvana shall remain only imperfect. Hence it is said that such an arahant shall achieve final nirvana (parnirvāna) only upon his actual physical death. In this regard, it is sometimes said that before a person learns Buddhism, a tree is a tree. After he has learned about Buddhism for a while, a tree is no longer a tree. But when he really understands about Buddhism, a tree is a tree again. To my understanding, what this means is that when he learns about Buddhism, he learns about and gets "attached" to the  view that  all phenomena are "illusory" or in the deepest sense, "unreal" , including the lack of reality of his own  "self", his own "mind", his own "feelings" , his own "perceptions" , his own "concepts" and the lack of reality of everything which he sees, hears, tastes, smells, touches in the sense that they just "appear" to have a distinct "identity" or "appear" to have stability or permanence but when he truly understands the core ideas of Buddhism which is the "emptiness" or "impermanence" of everything and have learned to stop getting attached to any of them, including his own thoughts, his own views of how he "should" look at this world, he would not allow himself to be affected by any such perceptions and thoughts and views. In this regard, it may be helpful to remember that the Buddha has taught his disciples not to get attached to anything, including what many monks regard as most important, his dharma (佛法). To the Buddha, his dharma is just a ladder to help us get at the ultimate truth of the universe i.e. its emptiness or its illusory and transient nature. In other words, it is just a boat to take us from the shore of ignorance or avidya (無明) to the other shore of enlightenment (覺悟). Once we have arrived at the other shore, we no longer need the boat. Is that not why Mahayana Buddhism is called  大乘 ("maha" in Sanskrit meaning "big" and "yana" meaning "vehicle")  and HInayana Buddhism is called 小乘 ("hina" meaning "small" or "little")?

There is little doubt that there are now still a lot of arguments over various intricate doctrinal differences between various Buddhist schools or sects and Buddhist scholars over what is the the correct understanding of what the Buddha taught and on some of the commentaries by his disciples and by later Buddhist masters on what the Buddha was reported to have said and also on various commentaries upon commentaries of what Buddha was reported to have said and also whether it is possible to develop further some of the ideas set out in various Buddhist sutras, what are the "best" methods for helping Buddhist converts to achieve nirvāna etc. with various of the "masters" being at loggerheads with each other as a result of their differences of opinion. I venture to suggest that had the Buddha been alive today, he would probably be less than happy to call himself a "Buddhist" in such circumstances.