Interesting, the Zen responses so far aren't much different from ours.Dan74 wrote:It seems that Greg has already moved on...
http://zenforuminternational.org/viewto ... =10&t=7773
Buddha nature
- Goofaholix
- Posts: 4030
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Buddha nature
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Re: Buddha nature
My sense is that we all hold on to concepts, teachings and beliefs. Most of these are hopefully beneficial and help to uproot unwholesome habits.
When someone else comes along with their pet belief, perhaps it is good to pause and reflect on whether this too could be beneficial to them even if we don't share this particular belief.
Buddha nature is an expedient, skillful means. It can be a designation, a pointer or an obstacle. It is not a statement of doctrine, it is not an assertion of an existent something. At most it is saying that Nibbana is an unconditioned dhamma. Typically (in my lineage) it is saying that liberation does not come from the outside and is not something to gain but manifests when the defilements and obscurations are let gone of. In terms of faith, it inspires a practitioner with the belief that he or she already have it and spurs them on with the inquiry why if they have it do they still suffer and delude themselves.
It is a powerful teaching that has been used by many generation of great Mahayana teachers.
Just because the Buddha is not on record to have used it does not make it useless. This is a leap of logic that is neither justified, nor probably beneficial in its effect on others (as we see with our friend Greg). It may indeed be no use to you or me - if you have attained liberation without delving into the teachings on the Buddha nature - wonderful! But it may well be of use to others and without proper understanding one should not rush to dismiss it, I think.
By coincidence just this morning I was reading one of the letters of Zen Master Ta Hui on this very subject, in the collection Swampland Flowers, which I heartily recommend to anyone remotely interested in Zen and Mayahana.
When someone else comes along with their pet belief, perhaps it is good to pause and reflect on whether this too could be beneficial to them even if we don't share this particular belief.
Buddha nature is an expedient, skillful means. It can be a designation, a pointer or an obstacle. It is not a statement of doctrine, it is not an assertion of an existent something. At most it is saying that Nibbana is an unconditioned dhamma. Typically (in my lineage) it is saying that liberation does not come from the outside and is not something to gain but manifests when the defilements and obscurations are let gone of. In terms of faith, it inspires a practitioner with the belief that he or she already have it and spurs them on with the inquiry why if they have it do they still suffer and delude themselves.
It is a powerful teaching that has been used by many generation of great Mahayana teachers.
Just because the Buddha is not on record to have used it does not make it useless. This is a leap of logic that is neither justified, nor probably beneficial in its effect on others (as we see with our friend Greg). It may indeed be no use to you or me - if you have attained liberation without delving into the teachings on the Buddha nature - wonderful! But it may well be of use to others and without proper understanding one should not rush to dismiss it, I think.
By coincidence just this morning I was reading one of the letters of Zen Master Ta Hui on this very subject, in the collection Swampland Flowers, which I heartily recommend to anyone remotely interested in Zen and Mayahana.
_/|\_
Re: Buddha nature
Thanks Dan,
When people use terminology that initially sounds completely oxymoronic to me, such as Buddha Nature or True Self, I have often found that the problem is with the terminology rather than what they are trying to get at.
Mike
When people use terminology that initially sounds completely oxymoronic to me, such as Buddha Nature or True Self, I have often found that the problem is with the terminology rather than what they are trying to get at.
Mike
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27860
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Buddha nature
Greetings Dan,
That said, Greg's decisions regarding his life are Greg's decisions to make and looking at his comments at ZFI, it would seem that Sanghamitta was quite possibly right on the money with the prediction that Greg is fixed in his views, and there's not much we can do about it. Also, consider that Theravadins haven't taken it upon themselves to lead all beings to enlightenment, but rather accepting that the Dhamma is the greatest of all gifts, we are happy to share what the Buddha taught (and where necessary, make clear that which he did not)... so if people aren't interested in what the Buddha's teaching has to offer (i.e. the gift of Dhamma) then their rejection of that gift simply is what it is. It is not cause for anyone here to beat themselves up over, or feel they have failed in some proselytization initiative. I am pleased Greg wishes to persist with the Dharma, in whatever form, and I hope it brings him benefit (but if it doesn't, it's no fault or failing on our part). We are not hunting for converts, nor are we proclaiming ourselves teachers or fulfilling bodhisattva aspirations... so please be mindful not to project your own self-imposed bodhisattva commitments onto us. It is sufficient that we do not misrepresent the Buddha. Thanks.
Metta,
Retro.
I do think people here are cognizant of such things, which is why we didn't see anyone here say anything unnecessarily harsh or degrading with respect to the notion of Buddha nature. In fact, I'd say the responses were very diplomatic, logical, and respectful.Dan74 wrote:When someone else comes along with their pet belief, perhaps it is good to pause and reflect on whether this too could be beneficial to them even if we don't share this particular belief.... expedient, skillful means.... Just because the Buddha is not on record to have used it does not make it useless...
That said, Greg's decisions regarding his life are Greg's decisions to make and looking at his comments at ZFI, it would seem that Sanghamitta was quite possibly right on the money with the prediction that Greg is fixed in his views, and there's not much we can do about it. Also, consider that Theravadins haven't taken it upon themselves to lead all beings to enlightenment, but rather accepting that the Dhamma is the greatest of all gifts, we are happy to share what the Buddha taught (and where necessary, make clear that which he did not)... so if people aren't interested in what the Buddha's teaching has to offer (i.e. the gift of Dhamma) then their rejection of that gift simply is what it is. It is not cause for anyone here to beat themselves up over, or feel they have failed in some proselytization initiative. I am pleased Greg wishes to persist with the Dharma, in whatever form, and I hope it brings him benefit (but if it doesn't, it's no fault or failing on our part). We are not hunting for converts, nor are we proclaiming ourselves teachers or fulfilling bodhisattva aspirations... so please be mindful not to project your own self-imposed bodhisattva commitments onto us. It is sufficient that we do not misrepresent the Buddha. Thanks.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Buddha nature
preferences make the world go round!
and to be away from them is....
and to be away from them is....
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: Buddha nature
That may be so, Mike, but as you probably know the term Buddha nature has been in wide circulation in Thai Buddhism, not least in the Forest tradition.mikenz66 wrote:Thanks Dan,
When people use terminology that initially sounds completely oxymoronic to me, such as Buddha Nature or True Self, I have often found that the problem is with the terminology rather than what they are trying to get at.
Mike
_/|\_
Re: Buddha nature
This article is worth reading - "Freedom from Buddha Nature" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:Dan74 wrote: That may be so, Mike, but as you probably know the term Buddha nature has been in wide circulation in Thai Buddhism, not least in the Forest tradition.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ature.html
excerpt:
Details of the author from Wikipedia:"This is why the Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind — good, bad, or Buddha. The idea of innate natures slipped into the Buddhist tradition in later centuries, when the principle of freedom was forgotten."
Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu, also known as Ajaan Geoff, (born 1949) is an American Theravada Buddhist monk of the Dhammayut Order (Dhammayutika Nikaya), Thai forest kammatthana tradition.
He is currently the abbot of Metta Forest Monastery in San Diego County. Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu is a notably skilled and prolific translator of the Pāli Canon. He is also the author of many free Dhamma books.
kind regards
Aloka
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Buddha nature
Hi Dan,Dan74 wrote:That may be so, Mike, but as you probably know the term Buddha nature has been in wide circulation in Thai Buddhism, not least in the Forest tradition.
I personally have not noticed this, have you an example?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: Buddha nature
Dan74 wrote:That may be so, Mike, but as you probably know the term Buddha nature has been in wide circulation in Thai Buddhism, not least in the Forest tradition.
A quote from Ajahn Sumedho former Thai Forest Tradition abbot of Amaravati Monastery UK
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Ajahn ... n_Time.htm"The "I am" is a perception - isn't it? - and "God" is a perception. They're conventionally valid for communication and so forth, but as a practice, if you don't let go of perception then you tend to still have the illusion - an illusoriness coming from a belief in the perception of the overself, or God or the Oneness or Buddha Nature, or the divine substance or the divine essence, or something like that."
_/\_
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:40 pm
Re: Buddha nature
I haven't moved on, in fact I haven't moved anywhere. I'm more confused than I've ever been. I've practiced Zen for a few years but became interested in Vipassana too, As Zazen is primarily concentration based, and I also want something Insight based. However at the same time I'm not sure how many people who do Vipassana meditation trust their own wisdom through their meditations or still cling to every single thing The Buddha was meant to have said.
"The original heart/mind shines like pure, clear water with the sweetest taste. But if the heart is pure, is our practice over? No, we must not cling even to this purity. We must go beyond all duality, all concepts, all bad, all good, all pure, all impure. We must go beyond self and nonself, beyond birth and death. When we see with the eye of wisdom, we know that the true Buddha is timeless, unborn, unrelated to any body, any history, any image. Buddha is the ground of all being, the realization of the truth of the unmoving mind.” Ajahn Chah
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Buddha nature
you have indicated otherwisegreggorious wrote:I haven't moved on, in fact I haven't moved anywhere. I'm more confused than I've ever been. I've practiced Zen for a few years but became interested in Vipassana too, As Zazen is primarily concentration based, and I also want something Insight based. However at the same time I'm not sure how many people who do Vipassana meditation trust their own wisdom through their meditations or still cling to every single thing The Buddha was meant to have said.
maybe due to our practice, and trust in others who are far more experianced than ourselves there is faith in the Teaching found within the canon?After briefly flirting with the Therevada tradition I think I'll stick just to Zen.
clinging to the teachings and testing them oneself id better than clinging to a perception of self, or having fixed beliefs.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: Buddha nature
Here's one you might recognize from Zen: Why don't you just sit? Get a good Vipassanna book or a teacher, sit down and see what you see. If you see buddha nature...great. What does that feel like. Is it permanent? or changing?....you get the idea.
May you be well
sean
May you be well
sean
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:40 pm
Re: Buddha nature
You checking up on me on the zen forum?
"The original heart/mind shines like pure, clear water with the sweetest taste. But if the heart is pure, is our practice over? No, we must not cling even to this purity. We must go beyond all duality, all concepts, all bad, all good, all pure, all impure. We must go beyond self and nonself, beyond birth and death. When we see with the eye of wisdom, we know that the true Buddha is timeless, unborn, unrelated to any body, any history, any image. Buddha is the ground of all being, the realization of the truth of the unmoving mind.” Ajahn Chah
Re: Buddha nature
if you're talking to me, no
I was refering to my use of the term "just sit", which I've heard used quite often by zen practitioners.
I was refering to my use of the term "just sit", which I've heard used quite often by zen practitioners.
-
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:40 pm
Re: Buddha nature
No I wasn't refering to you. Yes I'm well aware of the 'Just sit' statement. Many Zen masters will say 'Why don't you just sit and shut up'.
"The original heart/mind shines like pure, clear water with the sweetest taste. But if the heart is pure, is our practice over? No, we must not cling even to this purity. We must go beyond all duality, all concepts, all bad, all good, all pure, all impure. We must go beyond self and nonself, beyond birth and death. When we see with the eye of wisdom, we know that the true Buddha is timeless, unborn, unrelated to any body, any history, any image. Buddha is the ground of all being, the realization of the truth of the unmoving mind.” Ajahn Chah