Arhats....

[C T]

Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche on 'View, Meditation and Action" --

 

http://multimedia.getresponse.com/725/68725/documents/6834.pdf

[RongzomFan]

But then you have someone like Dudjom Rinpoche who says:

 

"The eight lower levels have intellectually fabricated and contrived

that which is changeless solely due to fleeting thoughts that

never experience what truly is. They apply antidotes to and reject

that which is not to be rejected. They refer to as flawed that in

which there is nothing to be purified, with a mind that desires

purification. They have created division with respect to that

which cannot be obtained by their hopes and fears that it can be

obtained elsewhere. And they have obscured wisdom, which is

naturally present, by their efforts in respect to that which is free

from effort and free from needing to be accomplished. Therefore,

they have had no chance to make contact with genuine, ultimate

reality as it is (rnal ma’i de kho na nyid)." - Wisdom Nectar, p30-31

 

Don't get me wrong. I always view Hinayana as a divine teaching. But its clear what Dudjom Rinpoche is saying.

[Mikeb85]

Edit - nm. Read something wrong.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Mikeb85

[XieJia]

to emphasize in methods, it is called thus and thus.

to empahsize on the goals, it is called thus and thus.

like the flavours to the different mouths.

 

The Buddha, teaches to some, points out to some.

The Tathagatha didn't points in two directions.

Edited May 21, 2013 by XieJia

[Simple_Jack]

From a blogger with an M.A. in East Asian Buddhist studies:

 

https://sites.google.com/site/dharmadepository/writings/arhats-and-longevity

Arhats and Longevity

As of late I have been reading part of Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya in detail utilizing the original Sanskrit as well as the Classical Chinese translations by Paramārtha 真諦 and Xuanzang 玄奘. In addition, I have made great use of Leo M. Pruden's English translation of Louis De La Vallee Poussin's French translation and study of the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya.

In the following section I will outline a process elaborated on in the text under the chapter on indriya which details how an Arhat increases or decreases his or her lifespan. The key thing to note here is the process first requires entry into the fourth dhyāna or meditative absorption which indeed entails that only those already quite advanced in samadhi have this ability. Furthermore, the process is one where a voluntary decline in enjoyment is exchanged for an extension in lifespan and a decline in lifespan is exchanged for an increase of enjoyment. The former is undertaken when an Arhat feels they would be of further benefit to sentient beings or to preserve the Dharma. The latter is undertaken when one sees oneself as being of little benefit to others and desires cessation.


I will provide here the Sanskrit followed by the two Classical Chinese translations penned by Paramārtha and Xuangzang respectively and finally the English translation by Poussin / Pruden.


The first paragraph explains how an Arhat transforms unripen karma, which was originally to become resultant joy, into an extension of his lifespan.

śāstre uktam ——“kathamāyuḥsaṃskārān sthāpayati ? arhan bhikṣuḥ ṛddhimāṃścetovaśitvaṃ prāptaḥ saṅghāya vā pudgalāya vā pātraṃ vā cīvaraṃ vā anyatamānyatamaṃ vā śrāmaṇakaṃ jīvitapariṣkāraṃ vā dattvā tat praṇidhāya prāntakoṭikaṃ caturthaṃ dhyānaṃ samāpadyate|sa tasmāt vyutthāya cittamutpādayati vācaṃ ca bhāṣate ——‘yanme bhogavipākaṃ karma tadāyurvipākaṃ bhavatu ’ iti tasya yad bhogavipākaṃ tadāyurvipākaṃ bhavati| yeṣāṃ punarayamabhiprāyaḥ ——vipākoccheṣa vipacyata iti|



【真】《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷2〈2 分別根品〉：「於阿毘達磨藏中說。云何引命行。令住阿羅漢比丘。有聖如意成通慧。至得心自在位。或於大眾。或於一人。捨施若鉢若袈裟。或隨一沙門命資糧。 因此發願。入第四定遠際三摩提觀。從此定起。作如是心。說如是言。凡是我業應熟感。富樂願此業熟生我壽命。是時此阿羅漢業。應感富樂。轉生壽 命。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1559, p. 174, c16-22)



【玄】《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷3〈2 分別根品〉：「云何苾芻留多壽行。謂阿羅漢成就神通得心自在。若於僧眾若於別人以諸命緣衣鉢等物隨分布施。施已發願。即入第四邊際靜慮。從定起已心念口 言。諸我能感富異熟業。願皆轉招壽異熟果。時彼能感富異熟業。則皆轉招壽異熟果。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 15, b11-16)


The Mūlaśāstra says: “How does a Bhikṣu stabilize the vital energies? An Arhat in possession of supernormal power (ŗddhimān-prāptābhijñāḥ), in possession of mastery of mind, i.e., one who is asamayavimukta, gives, either to the Sangha or to a person, things useful to life, clothing, pots, etc.: after having given these things, he applies this thought to his life; he then enters into the Fourth or prāntakoṭika Dhyāna; coming out of the absorption, he produces the thought and pronounces the words: 'May this action which should produce a retribution-in-joy [bhogavipāka] be transformed and produce a retribution-in-life [āyurvipāka]!' Then the action (the gift and the absorption) which should produce a retribution-in-joy produces a retribution-in-life.”(1)

The term “retribution-in-joy” or bhogavipāka is a combination of the terms bhoga and vipāka. The former is derived from the root verb √bhuj which has a number of meanings not limited to but including to enjoy food or carnal pleasures, to use, to possess and so on. The term bhoga itself can also mean experiencing, feeling or perception of pleasure or pain.(2) Paramārtha translated the term as fùlè 富樂. Xuanzang only uses the character fù 富. The term vipāka is perhaps better known in the expression karmavipāka where karma is volitional action and vipāka is the retribution or result of it. Hence the term bhogavipāka is interpreted as retribution as joy or pleasure. Incidentally, in the Mahāyāna the word sambhogakāya, otherwise known as the “enjoyment body” of the Buddha, also includes the term bhoga.

The other term “retribution-in-life” or āyurvipāka is derived from the terms āyus and vipāka. The word āyus is defined as life, vital power, vigour, health, duration of life or long life.(3) Thus it is clear how āyurvipāka is understood as a retribution or result of life or an extension in one's lifespan. Paramārtha appropriately rendered the term as shòumìng 壽命 and Xuanzang likewise used the character shòu 壽, which is normally rendered into English as longevity.

Having provided the opinion of the Mūlaśāstra, Vasubandhu then presents the opinion of another school.

ta āhuḥ ——“pūrvajātikṛtasya karmaṇo vipākoccheṣam| sa bhāvanābalenākṛṣya pratisaṃvedayate ” iti|


【真】《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷2〈2 分別根品〉：「復有餘師執。殘業果報轉熟。彼說宿生所作業。有殘果報。由修習力。引取受用。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1559, p. 174, c22-24)

【玄】《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷3〈2 分別根品〉：「復有欲令引取宿業殘異熟果。彼說前生曾所受業有殘異熟。由今所修邊際定力引取受用。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 15, b16-19)


According to other masters, the prolonged life of an Arhat is the result of the retribution of a previous action. According to them, there is a remnant of the result of retribution-in-life which should have ripened in a previous life, but which was interrupted by death before its time. And it is the force of the absorption of the Fourth Dhyāna that attracts this remnant and makes this remnant ripen now.

It seems here the alternate opinion is that it is not the willed thought coupled with the fourth dhyāna that enables prolonged life, but simply the dhyāna itself mechanically producing that result. Poussin and Pruden state “Arhat” here, but the term does not appear in the Sanskrit or Chinese. It is perhaps that the implied reference is to an Arhat. Nevertheless, one problem that arises from such argument is that it would mean anyone, or perhaps more specifically any Arhat, attaining the fourth dhyāna or deepest of meditative absorptions, would, whether willingly or unwillingly, prolong their lifespan as a rather mechanical resultant process. The Mūlaśāstra actually is more reasonable as it specifically states the Arhat must attain the fourth dhyāna and then will the transformation of vipāka for the desired result to occur.


Vasubandhu then continues his quotation of the Mūlaśāstra.

kathamāyuḥsaṃskārānutsṛjati ? tathaiva dānaṃ dattvā praṇidhāya prāntakoṭikaṃ caturthaṃ dhyānaṃ samāpadyate ——‘yanme āyurvipākaṃ tad bhogavipākaṃ bhavatu ’ iti|tasya tathā bhavati|


【真】《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷2〈2 分別根品〉：「云何棄捨命行。如此捨施發願。入第四定遠際三摩提觀。從此定起。作如是心。說如是言。凡是我業應熟感壽命。願此業熟生我富樂。如彼欲樂。如 此轉熟。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1559, p. 174, c24-28)



【玄】《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷3〈2 分別根品〉：「云何苾芻捨多壽行。謂阿羅漢成就神通得心自在。於僧眾等如前布施。施已發願。即入第四邊際靜慮。從定起已心念口言。諸我能感壽異熟業。願皆 轉招富異熟果。時彼能感壽異熟業。則皆轉招富異熟果。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 15, b19-23)


[The Mūlaśāstra continues] “How does a Bhikṣu cast off the vital energies? An Arhat in possession of supernormal powers ... enters into the Fourth Dhyāna ... ; coming out of this absorption, he produces the thought and pronounces these words: 'May the actions that should produce a retribution-in-life be transformed and produce a retribution-in-joy!' Then the action that should produce a retribution-in-life produces a retribution-in-joy.”

The term here “vital energies” is āyuḥsaṃskāra. The word saṃskāra itself is usually translated as karmic formation and is the fourth of the five skandhas or aggregates (the others being form, sensations, perceptions and consciousnesses) which conventionally make up a person. The term āyuḥsaṃskāra, like āyurvipāka, contains the word āyus which as stated above means life or longevity. Hence the term means the karmic formation of longevity, or as Poussin has translated “vital energies”.


Just as outlined above but here abbreviated, the Arhat commits a chartiable act and upon returning from a the fourth dhyāna, wills in his mind and verbally announces that whatever previous actions that would produce an extension in his life (āyurvipāka) be transformed and produce additional joy (bhogavipāka). Essentially what this entails is a sacrifice of longevity in exchange for additional enjoyment. However, this does not mean the Arhat is addicted to sensory pleasures and would rather have those than live longer. This is merely a mechanical process whereby one's life is shortened by willingly transforming and diverting one's unripe karma from longevity into enjoyment.


From here the question arises how this process works. Vasubandhu presents two opinions on the matter.

bhadantaghoṣakastvāha——“tasminneva āśraye rūpāvacarāṇi mahābhūtāni dhyānabalena sammukhīkarotyāyuṣo ’nukūlāni vairodhikāni ca|evamāyuḥsaṃskārān sthāpayati, evamutsṛjati ”iti|


【真】《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷2〈2 分別根品〉：「大德瞿沙說。於自依止中。由定力。引色界四大令現前。能隨順壽命。或相違四大。由如此方便。引命行令住。及以棄捨。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1559, p. 174, c28-p. 175, a1)


【玄】《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷3〈2 分別根品〉：「尊者妙音作如是說。彼起第四邊際定力引色界大種令身中現前。而彼大種或順壽行或違壽行。由此因緣或留壽行或捨壽行。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 15, b23-27)


The Bhadantaghoṣaka said: By the force of the prāntakoṭika Dhyāna that this Arhat has produced, the primary elements of Rūpadhātu are attracted and introduced into his body. These primary elements are favorable to, or contrary to, the vital energies [āyuḥsaṃskāra]. It is in this manner that the Arhat prolongs or casts off his life.

The opinion of the Sauntrāntika is then presented:

evaṃ tu bhavitavyam——samādhiprabhāva eva sa teṣāṃ tādṛśo yena pūrvakarmajaṃ sthitikālāvedhamindriyamahābhūtānāṃ vyāvarttayanti, apūrvaṃ ca samādhijamāvedhamākṣipanti|tasmānna tajjīvitendriyaṃ vipākam, tato ’nyat tu vipākaḥ|


《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷2〈2 分別根品〉：「應如此成。諸阿羅漢。有如此定自在力。由此力宿業所生。諸根四大。引住時量。皆悉迴轉。先未曾有三摩提引住時量。今則引接。是故如此壽命非 果報。異此名果報。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1559, p. 175, a2-5)


《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷3〈2 分別根品〉：「應如是說。彼阿羅漢由此自在三摩地力轉去曾得宿業所生諸根大種住時勢分。引取未曾定力所起諸根大種住時勢分。故此命根非是異熟。所餘一切皆 是異熟。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 15, b27-c1)


Along with the Sauntrāntikas, we say that the Arhats, through their mastery in absorption, cause the projection of the constitutive primary elements of the organs for a certain period of duration, a projection due to previous actions, to cease; inversely, they produce a new projection, born of absorption. Thus the vital organ, in the case of the prolonged life of an Arhat, is not retribution. But in other cases, it is retribution.

Finally, it begs to ask why would an Arhat shorten or extend their lifespan?

Kimarthamāyuḥsaṃskārānadhitiṣṭhanti? parahitārtham, śāsanasthityarthaṃ ca|te hyātmanaḥ kṣīṇamāyuḥ paśyanti, na ca tatrānyaṃ śaktaṃ paśyanti| atha kimarthamutsṛjanti? alpaṃ ca parahitaṃ jīvite paśyanti rogādibhūtaṃ cātmabhavam|


【真】《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷2〈2 分別根品〉：「阿羅漢人。何因發願引命行令住。或為利益他。或為令正法久住。是諸阿羅漢。已見自身壽命將盡。於此二中不見他有此能復以何因棄捨壽命。於有 命時。見利益他事少。自身疾苦所逼如偈言。修梵行已竟 聖道已善修 由捨命歡喜 如人病得差」(CBETA, T29, no. 1559, p. 175, a6-12)


【玄】《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷3〈2 分別根品〉：「彼阿羅漢有何因緣留多壽行。謂為利益安樂他故。或為聖教久住世故。觀知自身壽行將盡。觀他無此二種堪能。復何因緣捨多壽行。彼阿羅漢自觀住 世於他利益安樂事少。或為病等苦逼自身。如有頌言。梵行妙成立 聖道已善修 壽盡時歡喜　猶如捨眾病」(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 15, c2-9)


Why does the Arhat prolong his vital energies? For two reasons: with a view to the good of others, and with a view to the longer duration of the Dharma. He sees that his life is going to end; he sees that others are incapable of assuring these two ends. Why does the Arhat cast off his vital energies? For two reasons: he sees that his dwelling in the world has only a small utility for the good of others, and so sees himself tormented by sickness, etc. As the stanza says: “If the religious life has been well practiced, and the Way well cultivated, at the end of his life, he is happy, as at the disappearance of sickness.”

We should be mindful that the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya is a Śrāvakayāna and not Mahāyāna text. That being said, this particular section in a sense helps to explain the causal process behind mantras. In the aforementioned case, the Arhat, with fine and well developed mental stamina, summons a thought directed towards a certain effect and verbally states it. Likewise with a mantra one cultivates single pointed concentration, summons a thought directed towards a certain effect and verbally recites a short verse which represents it. The process seems to be identical. One thing to be stressed here is the emphasis placed on mental stamina or fitness. In the case of the Arhat, he must have mastery of the fourth dhyāna to successfully manipulate his lifespan. Likewise, it is my understanding of mantras that concentration of the practitioner affects their efficacy. Again, both processes work on the same principle.


I imagine someone might ask what bearing all this has in reality. What is the practical aspect of all this? I suppose the only appropriate answer is that one must attain mastery of the fourth dhyāna and only then is one in an actual position to verify the worth of such claims. Failing that, deferring to the testimony of a valid authority is possible, but will probably be unsatisfactory to most. We must keep in mind that this is not science, but by definition religion. The only way to verify whether it is really possible to extend or shorten one's lifespan through meditative absorption and willed thought is by attaining the state of an Arhat. In simpler terms we might see some hint of validity in such claims when we consider how the mental state of an individual can affect quite visibly their ageing process. Those who are weary and full of stress quickly turn grey and rapidly suffer the degeneration of mind and body. In contrast we see that those individuals who are calm, without stress and maintain good mental hygiene age slower and on the surface appear healthier. In any case, the effects of long and hard meditation are slowly being documented in the scientific community. If you are interested in the seemingly supernormal effects of meditation, I recommend the following article in the Harvard Gazette which outlines the documented effects of Tum Mo.


Meditation changes temperatures: Mind controls body in extreme experiments

By William J. Cromie

[Simple_Jack]

From a blogger who has an M.A. in East Asian Buddhist studies:

 

https://sites.google.com/site/dharmadepository/writings/fazang-on-the-fate-of-arhats

Fazang on the Fate of Arhats

In Mahāyāna thought there are numerous theories on the eventual fates of arhats and pratyekabuddhas. In Śrāvakayāna thought it is said that arhats, having eliminated all causes for future rebirth anywhere in the three realms, are forever free from saṃsāra and enter nirvāṇa. However, some strains of Mahāyāna have alternative ideas.

 

In my reading of the works of Fazang 法藏 (643–712) I have come to understand his position on the matter. Fazang's position is essentially that arhats and pratyekabuddhas are under the mistaken notion that their nirvāṇa is an absolute cessation of existence and that in fact they are reborn outside the three realms in a pure land, whereupon they receive a 'transformation body' and start the Mahāyāna path. Fazang cites numerous sūtras and śāstras to prove his point. He also makes use of a metaphysical explanation, asserting that if a sentient being had an ultimate end, it should have an ultimate beginning from which a 'non-sentient entity' would become a sentient entity.

 

Here I will outline in brief his canonical citations and his metaphysical reasoning.

 

First of all let us consider his summary of canonical citations proving his assertion that arhats and pratyekabuddhas are reborn outside the three realms.

 

《大 乘法界無差別論疏》卷1： 「又勝鬘經。無上依經。佛性論。寶性論。皆同說三界外。聲聞緣覺及大力菩薩。受三種變易身。又智論九十三。引法華第三釋云。有妙淨土。出過三界。阿羅漢當 生其中。是故定知入滅二乘。滅麁分段名入涅槃。實有變易在淨土中。受佛教化行菩薩道。若不爾者。未迴心時既無變易。迴心已去。即是漸悟菩薩。不名二乘。故 知於三界外所受變易。小乘以為涅槃。大乘深說。實是變易。本無涅槃。勝鬘云。聲聞緣覺。實無涅槃。唯如來有涅槃故。此論下云。應知唯有一乘道。若不爾者。 異此應有餘涅槃故。同一法界。豈有下劣涅槃。勝妙涅槃耶。以此當知二乘之人既無涅槃。無不皆當得菩提故。一切眾生皆是所為也。」(CBETA, T44, no. 1838, p. 62, a26-b11)

 

Furthermore, the

Śrīmālā-sūtra, Anuttarāśraya-sūtra, Treatise on Buddha Nature

and

Ratnagotravibhāga-mahāyānōttaratantra-śāstra

all likewise explain [the rebirth of arhats and pratyekabuddhas] outside the three realms. Śrāvaka, pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas of great power receive three kinds of transformation bodies. Furthermore, the

Mahāprājñā-pāramitôpadeśa

, quoting the third scroll of the

Lotus Sūtra

, explains that there is an excellent pure land beyond the three realms. Arhats are born within it. It is thus that we know for certain that the cessation of the two vehicles is the cessation of the coarse delimited saṃsāra which they call entering nirvāṇa. In truth they will possess a transformation body in the pure land, receive the Buddha's teachings and practice the bodhisattva path. If this were not so, then at the time they had not turned their minds [to the Mahāyāna] they would have no transformation [body], but upon turning their minds [to the Mahāyāna] they would be gradually realized bodhisattvas. They would not be called 'two vehicles'. Thus we know that it is outside the three realms that they receive the transformation [body]. The Hīnayāna thinks this is nirvāṇa. The Mahāyāna [has] a deeper explanation. In truth it is a transformation [body they receive]. Fundamentally there is no nirvāṇa [as the Hīnayāna would understand it]. The

Śrīmālā-sūtra

states that śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas in truth have no

nirvāṇa

. It is only the tathāgata who has nirvāṇa.

1

This treatise [the

Dasheng Fajie Wuchabie Lun

大乘法界無差別論] states below, “It should be understood that there is only the single vehicle path. If this were not so, it would be different from this as there would be another nirvāṇa

.

The same dharma-dhātu – how could there be an inferior nirvāṇa and a most excellent nirvāṇa?”

2

It is through these [citations] that we should understand that since those of the two vehicles [arhats and pratyekabuddhas] have no nirvāṇa, they will all attain bodhi, and thus all sentient beings are the object [of the aforementioned teaching].

 

These are potentially shocking statements – saying that there is no nirvāṇa. However, we need to keep in mind in this context 'nirvāṇa' refers to the absolute cessation of rebirth and existence, which is the goal of Śrāvakayāna teachings. The idea here is that there really is no absolute escape from our common reality, which for the unenlightened being is experienced as saṃsāra. This is not to deny the truth of the cessation of suffering. In Mahāyāna thought it is asserted that one can operate within common reality – even being reborn time and time again – without suffering, even experiencing it as bliss, provided wisdom and compassion are manifest.

 

The statement from the Mahāprājñā-pāramitôpadeśa he is citing is as follows.

 

問曰：阿羅漢先世因緣所受身必應當滅，住在何處而具足佛道？
答 曰：得阿羅漢時，三界諸漏因緣盡，更不復生三界。有淨佛土，出於三界，乃至無煩惱之名，於是國土佛所，聞《法華經》，具足佛道。如《法華經》說：「有羅 漢，若不聞《法華經》，自謂得滅度；我於餘國為說是事，汝皆當作佛。 (CBETA, T25, no. 1509, p. 714, a9-15)

 

Question -- Arhats in their past lives must have extinguished all the causes and conditions to receive a new body. Where do they abide and perfect the Buddha's path?

Answer -- When one attains arhatship all contaminated causes and conditions of the three realms are extinguished and one is no longer reborn in the three realms. There is a pure Buddha-land beyond the three realms, even being without the word 'defilements'. In this realm, the place of the Buddha, they hear the Lotus Sūtra, and perfect the Buddha's path. As the Lotus Sūtra says, "There are arhats who, if they have not heard the Lotus Sūtra, think of themselves as having attained cessation. In another realm I explain this - you all will become buddhas."

 

One will notice that the text does not explicitly say arhats are reborn in this pure buddha-realm outside the three realms. However, it seems logical to read it as such given that the question is where arhats reside after they pass away and how do they achieve buddhahood. Other writers like Jizang (549–623) 吉藏 interpret this passage in the same way.³ I think this is the logical way to understand this passage as well. The other thing to note is that there is no mention here of a 'transformation body' (變易身), which is actually an idea obtained from other texts.

 

As to his metaphysical reasoning for absolute cessation of all existence being untenable he explains in greater detail why there is no 'end of ashes and eternal cessation' (無灰斷永滅) for the two vehicles in his work entitled the Commentary on the Undiscriminated Mahāyāna Dharmadhātu Śāstra 《大乘法界無差別論疏》 by citing a passage from the Ghana-vyūha-sūtra 《密嚴經》 and elaborating the metaphysical reasons why such a permanent cessation is untenable.

 

《大乘法界無差別論疏》卷1：「密嚴第一頌云。涅槃若滅壞。眾生有終盡。眾生若有終。是亦有初際。應有非生法。而始作眾生。解云。此亦是聖教。亦是正理。若入寂二乘灰斷永滅。則是眾生作非眾生。若令眾生作非眾生。則應有非眾生而始作眾生。」(CBETA, T44, no. 1838, p. 62, a18-23)

 

A verse in the

Ghana-vyūha-sūtra

states, “If nirvāṇa were cessation, then a sentient being will have a complete end. If a sentient being has an end, then there should also be a beginning time. There should be a non-sentient dharma that starts being a sentient being.” Interpretation – This is the holy teaching and is also the right principle. If one were to enter into extinction, the two vehicles' 'end of ashes and eternal cessation', then this sentient being would become a non-sentient being. If a sentient being is made into a non-sentient being, then there should be non-sentient beings beginning to be sentient beings.

 

Fazang is arguing here that arhats and pratyekabuddhas cannot achieve an absolute cessation – that is to say, using his vocabulary, becoming a non-sentient entity – because it would follow that since a sentient entity could become a non-sentient entity, then a non-sentient entity should be able to become a sentient entity. If a sentient being has an ultimate absolute end, then it should also have a beginning according to him. For Fazang this would be equal to saying that an uncontaminated dharma could give rise to a contaminated dharma. He references the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra to demonstrate this point.

 

《大乘法界無差別論疏》卷1：「唯識論中。說有漏生於無漏。則難勿無漏法還生有漏。今亦例同。既眾生入滅同非眾生。勿非眾生法而還作眾生。」(CBETA, T44, no. 1838, p. 62, a23-26)

 

In the

Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra

it is explained that [if it is suggested that] the contaminated is produced in the uncontaminated, then the criticism is that there are no uncontaminated phenomena still producing the contaminated. Now the precedent is the same since sentient beings would enter cessation and be the same as a 'non-sentient being', [but] there are no 'non-sentient being' phenomena that still produce sentient beings.

 

One could respond by asking if a sentient being is doomed to exist as such without any possibility of transcending the state of being a sentient being. Moreover, how is it a sentient being becomes a buddha which is not a sentient being? Again, one must take into consideration the context in which this argument is being put forth. Fazang is arguing that sentient beings by virtue of being sentient entities cannot become non-sentient entities completely detached from reality, isolated in a nirvāṇa apart from all other beings. Sentient beings can, however, attain buddhahood where while not being a 'sentient being' they still actively interact with reality and all the sentient beings within it. This is an emotionally charged idea that one can still work within saṃsāra without being adversely affected by it.

 

Fazang's own sentiments are clear in the following statement by him:

 

《修華嚴奧旨妄盡還源觀》卷1：「觀色即空成大智而不住生死。觀空即色成大悲而不住涅槃。以色空無二。悲智不殊。」(CBETA, T45, no. 1876, p. 638, b1-3)

Seeing that form is emptiness manifests great wisdom and one does not abide in saṃsāra. Seeing that emptiness is form manifests great compassion and one does not abide in nirvāṇa. When form and emptiness are non-dual, compassion and wisdom are not different.

 

Still, I think his arguments would not satisfy a lot of people and raise many more questions. For example, from a Śrāvakayāna perspective one could argue that sentient beings do not become 'non-sentient beings', but rather just that upon attaining arhatship and passing away the causes and conditions for a sentient being to arise simply cease like a candle light being snuffed out. However, the Mahāyāna proponent could defer to canonical scriptures which indeed state arhats are reborn outside the three realms and eventually achieve buddhahood, though the Śrāvakayāna proponent would not accept this.

 

As I said above there are multiple theories on this matter. Fazang's ideas outlined above represent the views of just one thinker. He was a prolific writer and over the centuries many others read his works not only in China, but also in Korea and Japan. He no doubt influenced his posterity and so his ideas are worth special consideration.

[林愛偉]

According to Master Nan, both Hinyana and Mahayana schools aren't separate but stages....unless he is wrong. You know....

 

Very correct...stages.

[林愛偉]

All Buddha's teachings leads one to realization of the true mind, the Budha-nature. All of Buddha's teachings were taught according to the mind's of those around him. Some can take certain information, while others couldn't. Thus, the many EXPEDIENTS he provided.

[idiot_stimpy]

But then you have someone like Dudjom Rinpoche who says:

 

"The eight lower levels have intellectually fabricated and contrived

that which is changeless solely due to fleeting thoughts that

never experience what truly is. They apply antidotes to and reject

that which is not to be rejected. They refer to as flawed that in

which there is nothing to be purified, with a mind that desires

purification. They have created division with respect to that

which cannot be obtained by their hopes and fears that it can be

obtained elsewhere. And they have obscured wisdom, which is

naturally present, by their efforts in respect to that which is free

from effort and free from needing to be accomplished. Therefore,

they have had no chance to make contact with genuine, ultimate

reality as it is (rnal ma’i de kho na nyid)." - Wisdom Nectar, p30-31

 

Don't get me wrong. I always view Hinayana as a divine teaching. But its clear what Dudjom Rinpoche is saying.

 

I love this quote.