Property:PosAllBuddhaNote
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type Text.
A
He uses it as a support for his position on a single vehicle and describe it is a disposition which is a causal potential for buddhahood. +
B
Only Buddhas +
J
Since he equates the teachings on buddha-nature as an expedient way to teach emptiness, all beings have it because emptiness is pervasive. +
K
In the sense that all beings have the potential to achieve Buddhahood. +
"Rangjung Dorjé says in accordance with RGV I.27-28 that only the dharmakāya of all buddhas truly abides in sentient beings. The form kāyas are then explained as the outflow of the Dharma teachings on the level of the fruit, which corresponds to the pertinent passages in the first and third chapters of the ''Ratnagotravibhāga''." +
It exists in sentient beings, though it is very difficult to perceive due to being hindered by adventitious stains, which are explained in detail in the long quote in [[Mathes, K.]], [[A Direct Path to the Buddha Within]], p. 100. +
M
For sentient beings, buddha-nature is present, but not yet manifest. +
P
"...both Ngok and Chapa argue that sentient beings do not have tathāgata-essence on the basis of the first reason because they do not have the purified enlightened body of a buddha, rather they have the potential to achieve an enlightened state. However, they agree that sentient beings have the tathāgata-essence from the perspective of the second reason, which is that such-ness is indivisible or nondual. As Ngok states, 'That both a tathāgata and ordinary beings have [tathāgata] essence is actually the case.' The first reason is true only for enlightened beings, but only designated for ordinary beings; the second reason applies to both enlightened beings and sentient beings. Therefore, the two Kadam masters argue that sentient beings do not have the tathāgata-essence from the perspective of either the first reason of the resultant essence or the third reason of the causal essence. Rather it is the second reason that becomes the central point for establishing the link between enlightenment and sentient beings. It is the middle reason that shows that sentient beings and tathāgatas are the same in their ultimate nature. In other words, the only thing that sentient beings have in common with enlightened beings is the ultimate nature of their minds." +
R
He accepts a pure nature that is the five wisdom's which are possessed, but obscured in sentient beings, but in terms of buddha-nature as a seed, only bodhisattvas have it. +
It is dharmata or luminosity that is hindered by adventitious stains for sentient beings and is the dharmakaya at the level of a buddha. +
"Gyeltsap thus shows that ultimately both buddhas and sentient beings share the same suchness of mind which is the ultimate nature of mind that is free from natural defilements. Because of this he argues that all sentient beings have tathāgata-essence, and it is through this that he establishes the connection between tathāgata-essence and the concept of one-vehicle, the notion that ultimately there is only the final goal of buddhahood." +
"...both Ngok and Chapa argue that sentient beings do not have tathāgata-essence on the basis of the first reason because they do not have the purified enlightened body of a buddha, rather they have the potential to achieve an enlightened state. However, they agree that sentient beings have the tathāgata-essence from the perspective of the second reason, which is that such-ness is indivisible or nondual. As Ngok states, 'That both a tathāgata and ordinary beings have tathāgata-essence is actually the case.' The first reason is true only for enlightened beings, but only designated for ordinary beings; the second reason applies to both enlightened beings and sentient beings. Therefore, the two Kadam masters argue that sentient beings do not have the tathāgata-essence from the perspective of either the first reason of the resultant essence or the third reason of the causal essence. Rather it is the second reason that becomes the central point for establishing the link between enlightenment and sentient beings. It is the middle reason that shows that sentient beings and tathāgatas are the same in their ultimate nature. In other words, the only thing that sentient beings have in common with enlightened beings is the ultimate nature of their minds." +
Sentient beings are endowed with the naturally abiding gotra, but not the dharmakāya. +
*"Rinchen Yeshé quotes from these last-wheel sutras to show that the tathāgata-essence endowed with the marks and signs of a buddha (''sangs rgyas kyi mtshan dang dpe byad'') naturally exists in all sentient beings."
*"Therefore, for Rinchen Yeshé, buddha-nature is not simply a causal potential to achieve enlightenment; rather it is endowed with an inherent enlightened entity that is naturally free from all delusions, but temporarily covered by adventitious defilements."
+
S
There is some discrepancy between Sapen's use of the term tathāgata-essence and buddha-nature and other thinkers that use these terms synonymously. In Sapen's view, sentient beings do not possess the former, but do possess a more general form of the latter. So while the answer is a qualified "no" in terms of the more general debate on this issue and the way others have addressed it and asserted Sapen's position, strictly speaking from Sapen's view the answer could more accurately be a qualified "yes" as he does state all beings have a basic "inherent" buddha-nature, though this does not correspond to an essence that is endowed with enlightened qualities. The tricky issue being the equivalency of these terms tathāgata-essence and buddha-nature and the perception of the Sakya position by later authors. +
Only Buddhas +
All beings possess a "nominal" buddha-nature as is taught in the second-wheel teachings, while only bodhisattvas on the first bhumi and up (i.e. Noble Bodhisattvas) possess the "actual" buddha-nature as it was taught in the third-wheel teachings. (see note from Brunnhölzl below) +
T
Hodor. Hodor HODOR hodor, hodor hodor, hodor, hodor hodor. Hodor hodor, hodor. Hodor HODOR hodor, hodor hodor, hodor, hodor hodor. Hodor hodor - hodor hodor hodor - hodor, hodor. Hodor hodor?! Hodor hodor HODOR! Hodor HODOR hodor, hodor hodor... Hodor hodor hodor; hodor HODOR hodor, hodor hodor. Hodor. Hodor hodor HODOR! Hodor hodor hodor hodor... Hodor hodor hodor. Hodor. +