Tathāgatagarbha & Buddha-dhatu (DFFA version)

[tiltbillings]

If it is of any interest at all, one possible way of viewing Buddha Nature is that beings already have nibbana (or jhanas, for that matter); it is just covered with activity. This is in line with the path of letting go: we need less, rather than more; we need to lose, rather than to gain. If applied to the mental sphere, the end point is total detachment, anatta. I think I have heard this explanation from Ajahn Brahm (well, I'm just a parrot), who is very keen on reconciling traditions.

You see no problems with this?

[baratgab]

You see no problems with this?

Generally I agree about the path of letting go, and I think that one can validly make a good case of Buddha Nature out of it, as outlined above. As far as my representation goes, I'm not sure that this is the exact position of Ajahn Brahm (or the teacher, from whom I heard from); one's own silliness can introduce many faults even into the most tidy concept, when it comes to phrasing it with one's own words.

In any case, I see no special significance in this subject, other than the good-hearted intention of reconciling traditions, when it is needed. As others pointed out, the original teachings are entirely enough, and redundant concepts don't really improve upon anything.

Regardless of this, feel free to point out any inconsistencies, either here, if they are relevant to the topic, or in PM.

[Paññāsikhara]

What strikes me in this thread is that it is implied that "buddha nature" is unanimously accepted in all schools of Mahayana and that if the term as such is accepted then there would be one meaning that is unanimously implied by all schools of Mahayana.
This is definitely not so. E.g. Madhyamaka does not hold the Tathāgatagarbha view and some schools of Madhyamaka explicitely reject all interpretations of "buddha nature" that imply something other than a mere non-affirming negation (i.e. emptiness).

Kind regards

Exactly.

Your key point here, if I understand, is not that the Madhyamaka (and others) reject "buddha nature", but reject a particular interpretation of "buddha nature".

Greetings Without Colour,

To the best of my knowledge, neither of these terms (nor what they point to) are recognised in Theravada.

Metta,
Retro.

Paul's attempt at rejecting "buddha nature" in terms of a "buddha element" are only applicable to the affirming position vis this doctrine, but not with regards the Madhyamaka position. Simply reading the words "buddha-dhatu" and thinking that we now understand what all Mahayana schools mean by this is misrepresenting those schools. How can we then come to an understanding or answer the original question? Paul after all does state "what they point to", but unfortunately has not made the investigation to find out what they actually do refer to, and apparently doesn't even think that it is appropriate int his thread to find out!

Many Mahayana schools understand "tathagatagarbha" and "buddhadhatu" as synonyms for emptiness. This is almost always a strictly non-reified position, and in many cases extremely similar to Theravada positions on emptiness as not self. In fact, I may even go so far as to suggest that a majority of Indo-Tibetan schools read it in this way, and a fair portion of the east asian schools, too.

Thus, in this sense at least, although they may not use those exact words "tathagatagarbha" and / or "buddhadhatu", doctrinally there is a fair amount of commonality. As the second reliance states: Rely on the meaning, not on the words.

[cooran]

Hello all,

Cross-referencing other threads here on this topic, plus a bit more information:

Emptiness - mahayana and theravada
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=220

Buddha Nature
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3878

What is wrong with Buddha Nature
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=7716

Buddha Nature (also read the 20 page Word attachment)
http://littlebang.org/2009/05/06/buddha ... theravada/

with metta
Chris

[DarwidHalim]

OK, thank you guys.
Right now, I'm trying to sort out what's separating Theravadin and Mahayanan teachings, and figuring out which concepts belong to which. I really like Theravada for so many reasons, so that's what I'm attempting to categorize at the moment.

You may be able to do it.

However, can you sort out the differences in terms of realization between Theravada and Mahayana?

[LastLegend]

Hello folks.

I just want to say the mind is empty, cannot be conceptualized, touched, imagined. It's what we experience everyday. But it is nowhere to be seen or observed even at subatomic level because it is empty.

[tiltbillings]

Hello folks.

I just want to say the mind is empty, cannot be conceptualized, touched, imagined. It's what we experience everyday. But it is nowhere to be seen or observed even at subatomic level because it is empty.

So, how do we experience the mind? Also, "to say the mind is empty, cannot be conceptualized, touched, imagined" is to give us a large load of conceptualization about the mind.

[befriend]

i think the question comes down to, is the mind naturally pure and bright, or is it only colorless and has no shape?

[Kenshou]

...and what does that even mean and why does it matter?

[befriend]

...and what does that even mean and why does it matter?

if the mind is naturally pure and bright, wouldnt that mean we all have buddha nature, if the mind is at heart undefiled? or is the mind beyond any notion of good and bad pure or impure, meaning its not pure and bright and there is no buddha nature. does that make sense?

[Kenshou]

No.

But I now realize that this is a topic that I shouldn't have interjected into anyway, so don't worry about it.

[whynotme]

i think the question comes down to, is the mind naturally pure and bright, or is it only colorless and has no shape?

And who ask this question? The one is hurt by an arrow?

if the mind is naturally pure and bright, wouldnt that mean we all have buddha nature, if the mind is at heart undefiled? or is the mind beyond any notion of good and bad pure or impure, meaning its not pure and bright and there is no buddha nature. does that make sense?

Neither is right, it depends on contexts and meanings some words.

[ground]

i think the question comes down to, is the mind naturally pure and bright, or is it only colorless and has no shape?

And who ask this question? The one is hurt by an arrow?

"hurt by the mind" may be more appropriate.

Kind regards

[LastLegend]

So, how do we experience the mind?

Right now you experience mind, do you not? Just not directly. When you become an Arahant, you will also experience mind at a different level.

...is to give us a large load of conceptualization about the mind.

Yes what you said is true. But it is also true that you still imagine or conceptualize what mind is as if it is a substance when it is empty.

[tiltbillings]

So, how do we experience the mind?

Right now you experience mind, do you not?

But that does not tell us anything useful.

[LastLegend]

So, how do we experience the mind?

Right now you experience mind, do you not?

But that does not tell us anything useful.

If the mind is empty, then phenomenal things are interdependent as described in Dependent Origination.

[whynotme]

i think the question comes down to, is the mind naturally pure and bright, or is it only colorless and has no shape?

And who ask this question? The one is hurt by an arrow?

"hurt by the mind" may be more appropriate.

Kind regards

Thanks, that is right