I posted four translations since the first three seemed to differ substantially. According to legend, a sage looked at the baby Shakyamuni (the future Buddha) and seeing the thirty-two marks declared he would be a universal king or a buddha. Historically, early Buddhists thought that genuine Buddhas had to have thirty-two specific physical attributes. This Sutra refutes that claim, drawing on the aforementioned legend for evidence. Buddha only makes reference to thirty-two attributes in some translations, leading me to believe that the original teaching was just concerned with attributes in general, and not refuting the specific belief of early Buddhism concerning the thirty-two. Early Buddhists were just as swaddled in delusion as all other creatures, but it says a lot that Buddhist practice has persisted, grown and evolved. Later Buddhists de-emphasized the Buddha himself, lest beings get too attached to the concept and to the person.
To me, Buddhism is about practice, about realizing my own Buddha nature. I think this may be what is meant by "looking for the Buddha." My own Buddha nature is hard to describe, it is a mental place within myself which I relaize when I meditate and which helps to inform my actions in my day-to-day living.
4 comments:
Upon further reflection my own Buddha nature is not just within me but is one with everyone else's Buddha nature. Thus when I sink down into it, I am drawing on a power greater than myself.
Very well said. One of the many "tricks" I use when meditating is to imagine myself in relation to the earth (a small part of an imense whole). This allows me to stop planning, plotting, obsessing. This little trick of mine is not reality either, but it lets me let go.
As for the translation, I find it interesting that one of them has Subhuti saying "Yes, that is how he can be identified," only to be contradicted by Buddha.
What do you make of the assertion that if he could be identified by marks, then a universal lord/king/sage/ruler would be tathagata?
Is he saying that the tathagata is not a ruler, restating that he is an entity as such and not so attached to this world? I think there is something to my guesses, but that they miss the whole picture.
"What do you make of the assertion that if he could be identified by marks, then a universal lord/king/sage/ruler would be tathagata?"
At the surface, he is referring to the story about how the sage identified 32 marks on the baby Shakyamuni and prophesied that Shakyamuni would either become a Buddha or a great ruler. Buddha is now saying, if the 32 marks are all that's necessary, then assuming the sage knew what he was talking about, this could also be the sign of a great ruler.
However, who knows? Maybe this legend was concocted to explain this passage. And even if it weren't, there should still be a deeper meaning. I agree that one meaning is that the Tathagata is not an entity. Also, if Buddhism went the way of seeking new Buddhas based on physical characteristics, the resulting Buddhas would not be Buddhas. They might very well become leaders of Buddhist communities or a world Buddhism community, but that's all they would be.
A Buddha is recognized by her spirit and not by her body. Moreover, everyone has Buddha nature within them, and some are Buddhas some of the time.
BTW, this morning, while meditating, the trick I mentioned in my comment, instead of helping me detach, hooked me into thinking about this blog. It may be that it no longer works for me now. My raft has sprung a leak!
Post a Comment